HISTORY  AND  PROCEDURE  OF 
THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


HISTORY  AND  PROCEDURE 

OF  THE 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


BY 

DE  ALVA  STANWOOD  ALEXANDER,  A.M.,  LL.D., 

AUTHOR  OF 

The  Political  History  of  the  State  of  New  York 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN  COMPANY 
ttibetfibe  JDrcjtf  Cambrib0e 
1916 


COPYRIGHT,  1916,  BY  DE  ALVA  STANWOOD  ALEXANDER 
ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 

Published  April  iqrt 


PREFACE 

WHEN  the  writer  entered  Congress,  Speaker  Reed, 
whom  he  had  known  for  several  years,  advised  him  to 
prepare  a  series  of  lectures  upon  the  history  and  pro- 
cedure of  the  House  for  use  when  invited  to  address 
clubs  and  other  social  organizations  in  the  writer's  dis- 
trict. In  proof  of  his  sincerity  he  offered  his  assistance, 
and  the  notes  made  at  that  time  and  afterward  fre- 
quently used  in  unwritten  addresses  form  the  basis  of 
this  volume. 

Speaker  Reed's  articles  in  the  North  American  Review 
and  other  publications,  including  the  little  treatise  on 
Parliamentary  Rules,  advertised  the  thoroughness  of 
his  study  of  the  House  procedure  from  its  earliest  be- 
ginnings; but  long  before  he  began  to  publish,  his  ready 
explanations  of  apparently  conflicting  precedents,  dis- 
closing the  history  of  their  origin  and  the  difference 
in  their  parliamentary  status,  proclaimed  his  familiarity 
with  the  various  rulings  of  a  long  line  of  Speakers.  In- 
deed, he  gained  his  authority  in  the  House  as  much  by 
his  knowledge  of  things  hidden  in  a  mass  of  parliamen- 
tary proceedings,  which  others  rarely  disturbed,  as  by 
his  ability  felicitously  to  express  and  apply  them  when 
brought  to  the  surface.  His  remarkable  memory  may 
be  called  the  prototype  of  Hinds's  Precedents,  for  he 
knew  and  could  cite  them  offhand  as  readily  as  the  aver- 
age student  of  parliamentary  proceedings  now  refers  to 
the  Precedents. 


342917 


vi  PREFACE 

In  his  friendly  talks  on  the  evolution  of  the  House 
procedure,  Mr.  Reed  delighted  to  dwell  upon  the  idio- 
syncrasies of  the  past.  The  indisposition  of  early  legis- 
lators to  aid  in  the  expedition  of  business  amused  him. 
Members  loved  to  exploit  their  opinions  then  as  much 
as  now,  he  said,  and  the  only  reason  why  we  are  not 
as  overloaded  with  their  speeches  is  because  Congress 
wisely  refused  to  pay  for  their  publication.  Even  when 
business  and  membership  increased,  they  preferred  to 
jog  along  in  the  old  stage-coach  fashion.  Few  knew  any- 
thing of  the  Code.  When  things  got  into  a  tangle  it  was 
easier  to  suspend  the  rules  than  to  untie  the  knots.  It 
provoked  his  criticism  that  the  House,  rather  than  give 
up  the  selfish  habit  of  making  long  speeches,  reversed 
the  Speakers  ruling  cutting  off  all  debate  after  the  pre- 
vious question  had  been  ordered.  Even  after  the  prin- 
ciple was  fully  established  in  1811,  the  speech-loving 
members  invoked  its  relief  only  four  times  in  the  next 
twenty  years.  In  fact,  the  House  had  existed  over  half 
a  century  before  it  limited  the  length  of  speeches  to  one 
hour. 

The  disposition  of  the  House  to  conserve  the  minor- 
ity's alleged  right  to  delay  and  even  to  stop  business 
greatly  diverted  him.  The  majority  seemed  to  be  afraid 
of  itself,  he  declared,  with  his  usual. sarcastic  drawl.  It 
acted  as  if  it  needed  a  guardian^  otherwise  why  did  it 
insist  upon  having  two  thirds,  a  quorum  voting,  before 
it  dared  to  suspend  the  rules  to  limit  dilatory  motions,  or 
to  adopt  a  special  order  for  any  purpose,  or  to  take  a 
Senate  bill  from  the  Speaker's  table  and  send  it  to  con- 
ference?/ Even  more  ridiculous  was  its  insistence  that 

~ 


PREFACE  vii 

pass  a  bill  a  quorum  must  answer  to  a  roll-call,  even 
though  every  member  entitled  to  vote  was  in  his  seat. 
In  fact,  the  unwritten  law  of  the  House,  he  said,  in- 
trenched the  minority's  power  to  check  the  majority, 
and  rather  than  depart  from  such  alleged  legislative 
safeguards  a  partisan  majority,  although  trembling  with 
anger,  preferred  accepting  a  humiliating  compromise 
or  a  stinging  defeat.  As  late  as  1880,  he  recalled,  the 
Committee  on  Rules,  charged  with  a  revision  of  the 
Code,  boasted  that  it  had  not  "  invaded  the  powers  of  a 
minority  to  check  temporarily,  if  not  permanently,  the 
action  of  a  majority  believed  to  be  improper  or  un- 
constitutional." When  a  conservative  and  well-inten- 
tioned party,  reduced  to  desperate  straits  and  backed 
by  the  ruling  of  a  bold  Speaker,  fearlessly  adopted  a 
special  order  by  a  majority  vote,  it  caused  such  a 
tempest  of  dismay  that  forty-one  years  elapsed  before 
such  a  thing  occurred  again.  And  yet,  he  mused,  within 
less  than  a  generation  this  view  has  become  so  obsolete 
as  to  make  the  sober  maintenance  of  it  seem  incredible. 
So  with  the  "disappearing  quorum,"  once  debated 
with  extreme  bitterness  as  affecting  the  very  existence 
of  parliamentary  government,  now  abandoned  if  not 
entirely  forgotten.  The  yea  and  nay  vote,  he  added, 
was  based  upon  the  assumption  that  no  other  count 
could  be  as  accurate,  and  thus  the  roll-call  continued 
to  be  the  test  of  the  presence  of  a  quorum  until  the 
silence  of  members  became  so  intolerable  that  it  could 
no  longer  be  endured  without  dishonor.  The  trouble 
was  we  identified  safety  with  numbers  rather  than  with 
adherence  to  the  principle  that  true  progress  is  sure  to 


viii  t         PREFACE 

make  for  good./ The  conservative,  in  every  department 
of  life,  is  always  open  to  the  attack  of  the  progressive, 
and  is  always  eventually  defeated,  p 

Mr.  Reed  might  have  added,  if  not  prevented  by  the 
modesty  that  made  his  intellectual  power  the  more 
marked,  that  back  of  every  movement  for  the  expedition 
of  business  in  the  House  stood  an  able,  courageous 
leader,  who  dared  to  think  new  thoughts  and  find  new 
ways.  The  history  of  those  progress-making  innovations 
is  as  interesting  to-day  to  every  lover  of  the  forensic  duel 
as  the  events  themselves  were  exciting  at  the  time  of 
their  occurrence.  Mr.  Reed  enjoyed  telling  of  John  W. 
Eppes,  of  Virginia,  who  established  the  practice  that 
ordering  the  previous  question  ended  all  debate.  It 
occurred  at  two  o'clock  in  the  morning,  while  John 
Randolph,  whom  Eppes  had  challenged,  was  hunting  for 
a  second,  and  when  only  four  days  remained  in  which 
to  pass  a  bill  that  deeply  interested  President  Madison 
and  the  backers  of  his  Administration.  No  less  sensa- 
tional was  the  adoption  for  the  first  time  of  a  special 
order  by  a  majority  vote,  which  released  a  bill  from  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  after  a  minority  had  held  it  in 
captivity  all  winter.  Speaker  White,  of  Kentucky,  who 
engineered  the  coup  d'etat,  came  in  for  as  much  condem- 
nation as  if  he  had  been  concerned  in  a  Gunpowder  Plot. 
Indeed,  so  violent  was  the  scene  that  the  staid  old  clerk 
turned  newsmonger,  entering  in  the  Journal  the  fact  that 
the  great  uproar  within  made  members  unmindful  of  a 
terrific  thunder  storm  without.  A  scene  equally  bois- 
terous, if  not  as  threateningly  vehement,  occurred  when 
Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  played  a  cunning 


PREFACE  ix 

trick  —  "a  parliamentary  fraud,"  Speaker  Elaine  pro- 
nounced it  —  that  passed  the  bill  repealing  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise,  which  Free  Soilers  had  held  up  for  five 
months.  But  the  tumult  which  attended  the  counting  of 
a  quorum  exceeded  all  former  scenes  of  disorder.  The 
House  became  a  perfect  bedlam.  At  the  mention  of  each 
member's  name,  to  be  counted  as  present  and  not  voting, 
an  explosion  occurred  more  violent  than  its  predecessor. 
Even  when  the  deafening  noise  attending  a  roll-call 
would  subside,  the  older  weapons,  dragged  from  the 
arsenal  of  obstruction,  filled  the  great  chamber  with  hot 
denunciations  of  a  revolutionary  and  anarchistic  type. 
Thus  for  three  days  business  was  halted  and  the  vocabu- 
lary of  passionate  remonstrance  exhausted. 

Some  of  these  new  ways  did  not  change  the  thought 
or  the  parliamentary  practice  of  the  House.  For  the 
moment  Speaker  White's  device  seemed  like  the  begin- 
ning of  a  new  order  of  things;  but  the  leaders,  although 
claiming  to  believe  in  majority  rule,  would  give  not  so 
much  as  a  hearing  to  the  idea  of  allowing  the  Speaker 
to  suppress  dilatory  motions,  or  of  permitting  a  ma- 
jority to  clear  the  way  for  a  special  order.  In  fact,  the 
situation  in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  (1881-83) 
seemed  to  imply  the  final  failure  of  a  majority  to  accom- 
plish anything  opposed  by  a  minority  of  more  than  one 
third.  The  rules  seemed  wholly  out  of  accord,  not  only 
with  the  age,  but  with  the  spirit  of  parliamentary  prog- 
ress. 

It  was  at  this  crisis  that  Thomas  B.  Reed,  declaring 
that  the  protection  of  the  minority  did  not  mean  the 
destruction  of  the  majority,  began  to  inflict  the  blows 


x  PREFACE 

that  destroyed  dilatory  motions,  limited  the  passage  of 
special  orders  to  a  majority  vote,  exterminated  the  "dis- 
appearing quorum,"  and  then  crystallized  the  results 
into  rules  which  have  become  the  accepted  law  of  the 
House.  As,  in  his  time,  Henry  Clay  freed  the  House 
from  the  control  of  the  President,  so  Reed,  for  all  time, 
freed  it  from  the  restraints  of  a  minority.  Clay  governed 
by  enforcing  the  old  rules;  Reed  dominated  by  creating 
new  rules.  Clay  made  the  House  a  power  by  managing 
men;  Reed  made  it  a  power  by  establishing  the  major- 
ity's right  to  rule. 

The  story  of  subsequent  changes  in  the  House  pro- 
cedure, no  less  drastic  if  not  yet  vindicated  by  results, 
is  equally  interesting.  Mr.  Reed  had  a  profound  regard 
for  the  dignity  and  importance  of  the  Speakership.  To 
him  it  spoke  the  aspirations  of  the  Fathers  to  give 
initiative  and  force  to  policies  demanded  by  a  majority 
of  the  people  at  each  biennial  election.  In  his  opinion 
the  Speaker  was  chosen  not  simply  to  preside  over  the 
deliberations  of  his  fellow  members,  but  to  carry  out 
party  pledges  and  round  up  a  successful  legislative  ses- 
sion. This  involved  committee  appointments,  for  legis- 
lation derives  its  character  in  large  part  from  the  com- 
plexion of  committees,  and  the  fairer,  more  experienced, 
and  better  fitted  is  their  membership,  the  more  satis- 
factory must  be  their  work.  Properly  to  select  appoin- 
tees in  a  House  membership  running  up  into  the 
hundreds  requires  an  intimate  personal  knowledge  of  in- 
dividual ambitions,  characteristics,  achievements,  and 
peculiar  fitness  for  service,  and  in  Mr.  Reed's  judgment 
no  one  would  so  patiently  and  certainly  acquire  such 


PREFACE  xi 

information  as  the  Speaker,  —  not  because  the  right 
of  appointment  belonged  to  the  office,  but  because  upon 
him  rested  the  whole  responsibility  of  choosing  men  who 
would  loyally  write  party  pledges  into  legislation  and 
give  conscientious  study,  guided  by  an  open  mind,  to  all 
other  measures.  Moreover,  he  thought  the  responsibility 
attendant  on  the  exercise  of  such  a  delicate  and  sig- 
nificant power  should  be  absolutely  known.  In  other 
words,  that  some  one  beyond  question  should  be  answer- 
able to  the  House  and  to  the  country.  Thus,  when  it  was 
proposed  in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  (1881)  to  sub- 
stitute for  this  purpose  a  board  or  committee  of  eleven 
members,  to  be  selected  by  log-rolling  processes  insep- 
arable from  caucus  action,  he  failed  to  find  the  man  upon 
whom  responsibility  for  weak,  sinister  appointments 
could  be  fixed.  "The  Speaker,"  he  said,  "is  not  only  un- 
der the  constant  supervision  of  public  opinion,  but  under 
the  supervision  of  this  House,  and  an  appointment  out 
of  accord  with  the  proprieties  makes  him  an  object  of 
suspicion.  But  for  the  wrongful  acts  of  eleven  men 
public  displeasure  could  rarely  find  a  victim." 

In  Mr.  Reed's  judgment  the  Speaker's  relation  to  com- 
mittees did  not  end  with  their  appointment.  It  was  his 
duty  to  remain  in  touch  with  their  deliberations  and  to 
keep  advised  of  the  progress  of  their  work,  for  to  bring 
about  a  successful  legislative  session,  wherein  due  re- 
gard is  given  to  the  relative  importance  of  matters, 
some  impartial  coordinating  power  must  somewhere 
exist,  and  he  thought  the  Speaker,  whose  eye  is  continu- 
ally over  the  whole  field  of  possible  legislation,  the  best 
qualified  to  exercise  this  power.  To  assist  him  in  the 


xii  PREFACE 

work  of  coordination  Mr.  Reed  relied  upon  a  Committee 
on  Rules,  the  chief  function  of  which  was  to  open  ways 
for  emergency  matters  that  must  have  immediate  at- 
tention, and  to  bring  up  promptly  for  consideration  pub- 
lic bills  that  have  necessarily  been  delayed  in  committee. 
For  this  purpose  he  preferred  a  small  committee,  in  har- 
mony with  the  Speaker's  purposes  and  capable  of  being 
called  into  action  at  once.  Such  a  committee,  he  said, 
could  not  be  autocratic,  since  its  recommendations  were 
without  validity  until  adopted  by  the  House,  and  their 
adoption  was  possible  only  so  long  as  the  committee 
represented  the  majority's  wishes. 

But  later-day  statesmen,  regarding  this  power  too 
great  to  be  concentrated  in  one  individual,  have  modi- 
fied and  divided  it  until  an  entirely  different  conception 
of  the  Speakership  and  its  duties  exists  at  present.  The 
Speaker  has  been  disarmed.  He  neither  appoints  the 
committees  nor  is  a  member  of  a  committee.  His  in- 
fluence over  legislation  is  limited  to  personality  and 
membership.  What  business  shall  be  done  hi  the  House, 
when  it  shall  be  done,  and  how  it  shall  be  done,  are  mat- 
ters with  which  he  has  no  concern  other  than  that  it  shall 
proceed  in  order  under  the  rules.  In  a  word,  he  is  simply 
a  moderator,  who  keeps  order  and  decides  points  of  or- 
der, and  whose  recognition  of  members,  except  in  one 
instance,  is  wholly  beyond  his  discretion. 

The  appointment  of  committees  by  a  caucus-selected 
board  likewise  reversed  Reed's  idea  of  efficiency  and 
fixed  responsibility,  recalling  his  prophetic  exclamations: 
"Think  of  the  Speakership  of  this  House  going  into  com- 
mission! Think  of  the  log-rolling  in  order  to  secure  a 


PREFACE  xiii 

board  that  will  favor  various  measures!"  Nor  in  his 
opinion  would  it  commend  the  present  method  if  the 
chairman  of  the  appointing  board  or  committee  controls 
the  appointments,  since  that  would  simply  transfer  the 
prestige  of  the  Speaker  to  the  floor  leader,  thus  destroy- 
ing the  alleged  reason  for  emasculating  the  Speakership. 

Equally  destructive  of  the  Reed  idea  is  the  enlarged 
and  elective  Committee  on  Rules,  often  hampered  by 
the  absence  of  a  quorum.  Representing  several  and 
sometimes  conflicting  legislative  interests,  it  is  as  likely 
to  be  divisive  as  advisory.  Nor  is  it  longer  an  emer- 
gency committee,  but  a  full-fledged,  independent  entity, 
with  a  room  and  a  clerk,  and  engaged  in  matters  of  its 
own,  which  are  entirely  divorced  from  questions  per- 
taining to  the  leadership  of  the  House. 

These  drastic  changes,  still  in  an  experimental  stage, 
have  not  been  gradual.  They  came  abruptly,  one  after 
another,  preceded  by  forensic  battles  as  picturesque  and 
sudden  as  those  which  aroused  the  country  in  the  last 
century,  and  it  has  been  the  aim  of  the  writer  to  make 
plain  each  step  in  the  evolution. 

To  the  Honorable  John  Dalzell,  of  Pennsylvania,  the 
writer  is  deeply  indebted  for  his  patient,  thorough  re- 
vision of  the  pages  treating  of  this  evolution.  As  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House  Mr.  Dalzell  was  recognized  as  a  pro- 
foundly learned  and  skillful  parliamentarian.  For  sixteen 
consecutive  years,  during  the  administrations  of  Speak- 
ers Reed,  Henderson,  and  Cannon,  he  was  a  potent 
influence  on  the  Committee  on  Rules,  whose  judgment 
upon  questions  of  parliamentary  procedure  had  the 
quality  of  finality.  Indeed,  the  confidence  of  the  House 


xiv  PREFACE 

in  the  accuracy  of  his  knowledge  was  so  deeply  rooted 
that  when  a  majority  in  the  Sixty-first  Congress  forced 
a  reorganization  of  that  committee,  increasing  its  mem- 
bership from  five  to  ten  without  the  Speaker  and  making 
its  members  elective,  Mr.  Dalzell  was  not  only  retained 
on  the  new  committee,  but  was  elected  its  chairman.  It 
is  proper  to  add  that  he  is  in  no  wise  responsible  for  any 
of  the  views  expressed  in  this  book. 

The  eight  volumes  of  the  Honorable  Asher  C.  Hinds, 
of  Maine,  entitled  Precedents  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, have  also  been  an  invaluable  aid.  His  great  work 
happily  combines  minuteness  of  research  with  wideness 
of  vision.  Nothing  seems  to  have  escaped  his  eye,  or 
to  have  blurred  his  appreciation  of  the  historic  value 
of  the  slightest  incident.  Detached  from  all  partisan 
prejudices,  he  has  disclosed  a  long  list  of  obscure  prec- 
edents, obsolete  rules,  and  antiquated  forms,  as  well  as 
the  latest  rulings  and  up-to-date  changes  in  parliamen- 
tary procedure.  Congress  should  ever  be  proud  that 
it  possessed  a  teacher  whose  constructive  work  must 
always  remain  its  richest  heritage. 

The  character  studies  of  the  more  prominent  public 
men  mentioned  in  this  history,  especially  those  who 
figured  during  the  ten  years  preceding  the  Civil  War, 
are  based  upon  the  personal  knowledge  of  various  mem- 
bers, notably  former  Speaker  Grow,  with  whom  the 
writer  served  during  the  Fifty-fifth,  Fifty-sixth,  and 
Fifty-seventh  Congresses.  Of  those  who  gained  prom- 
inence in  the  ten  years  prior  to  1850,  information  came 
largely,  through  the  Honorable  William  P.  Frye,  of 
Maine,  from  the  Honorable  Alexander  H.  Stephens. 


PREFACE  xv 

After  the  latter  reentered  the  House  in  the  Forty-third 
Congress  (1873),  Mr.  Frye  enjoyed  his  confidence  to  an 
unlimited  degree.  They  served  upon  the  Committee  on 
Rules,  spending  the  summer  of  1879  at  Atlantic  City 
while  preparing  the  historic  revision  of  the  Code  adopted 
in  1880. 

An  attempt  to  delineate  the  character  of  the  earliest 
floor  leaders,  whose  names  are  fading  from  men's  memo- 
ries, is  most  difficult.  We  have  a  few  pages  of  their  de- 
bates, but  little  of  the  familiar  knowledge  of  contempo- 
raries and  less  of  tradition.  Indeed,  were  it  not  for  the 
Diary  of  John  Quincy  Adams  we  should  be  practically 
ignorant  of  the  personality  of  some  of  those  who  lived 
only  three  quarters  of  a  century  ago.  Even  with  the  aid 
of  this  distinguished  archivist,  who  wrote  for  publica- 
tion, we  are  without  impartial  materials,  for  there  is 
nothing  of  restraint  in  his  style  or  of  caution  in  his  words. 
So  strong,  in  fact,  was  his  individualism  and  so  capri- 
cious his  humor  that  it  would  be  rash  oftentimes  to 
accept  his  notes  as  documentary  evidence. 

THE  AUTHOR. 

BUFFALO,  NEW  YORK. 


CONTENTS 

I.   APPORTIONMENT  AND  QUALIFICATION  OP  MEMBERS       3 
H.   THE  ROLL  OF  MEMBERS   ELECT        .  .  .  .12 

HI.   ORGANIZATION  OF   THE  HOUSE  .      26 

IV.   THE  SPEAKER 41 

V.  THE  SPEAKER  AND   COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS        .     66 
VI.   OTHER  OFFICERS  AND   THE  WHIP   .  .  .  .91 

VII.   FLOOR  LEADERS 107 

VTII.   PRIVILEGES,  PAY,  AND   OBSEQUIES  OF  MEMBERS      .    137 

IX.   CREATING  AND   COUNTING  A  QUORUM      .  .  .   155 

X.   THE  RULES  AND  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES   .  .   180 

XI.   THE  ORDER  OF  BUSINESS 213 

XH.   COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK        .  .  .  .226 

XIII.  THE  COMMITTEE  OF   THE  WHOLE    ....   256 

XIV.  THE  MAKING  OF  A  LAW            .           .           .           .           .  273 
XV.   DEBATE  AND   DEBATERS 288 

XVI.   CONTESTED   ELECTION   CASES 313 

XVII.   IMPEACHMENT   PROCEEDINGS 331 

XVIII.   THE   PRESIDENT   AND   THE  HOUSE   ....  353 
APPENDIX 389 

A.  PRESIDENTS  AND    VICE-PRESIDENTS    AND    THE 

CONGRESSES  COINCIDENT  WITH  THEIR  TERMS  391 

B.  SPEAKERS,   CLERKS,    AND   SERGEANTS-AT-ARMS  393 

C.  DOORKEEPERS  AND   POSTMASTERS    .  .  .396 

D.  FATHERS  OF  THE  HOUSE          .  .  .  .398 

E.  CHAIRMEN     OF     MOST     IMPORTANT     STANDING_ 

COMMITTEES   FROM  DATE  OF  FORMATION     .  399 

F.  POLITICAL    DIVISIONS   OF  THE    HOUSE    OF   RE- 

PRESENTATIVES FROM   1789  TO  1915  .          .  411 

G.  APPORTIONMENT   OF  MEMBERS   BY  STATES       .   413 
INDEX 415 


HISTORY  AND  PROCEDURE   OF 
THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


HISTORY  AND  PROCEDURE  OP 
THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

CHAPTER  I 

APPORTIONMENT  AND  QUALIFICATION  OF  MEMBERS 

IN  providing  representation  for  a  National  House  OUT 
Constitution-makers  borrowed  nothing  from  the  system 
which  obtained  in  the  British  Commons.  That  system 
could  scarcely  have  been  worse.  "The  notorious  bor- 
ough of  Old  Sarum,"  writes  Lord  Rosebery,  "was  an 
area  of  about  sixty  acres  of  ploughed  land,  on  which  had 
once  stood  the  old  city  of  Salisbury,  but  which  no  longer 
contained  a  single  house  or  a  single  resident.  The  elec- 
torate consisted  of  seven  votes,  which  returned  two 
members.  When  an  election  took  place,  the  returning 
officer  brought  with  him  a  tent,  under  which  the  neces- 
sary business  was  transacted." 1  No  less  an  authority 
than  Sir  Courtenay  Ilbert,  present  Clerk  of  the  Com- 
mons, says  that  "a  small  number  of  powerful  and 
wealthy  men  controlled  all  the  elections,  while  it  has 
been  estimated  that  from  1760  to  1832  nearly  one  half 
the  members  owed  their  seats  to  patrons  whose  interests 
they  studied  and  whom  they  obeyed." 2 

Edmund  Burke,  who  profited  by  this  system,  resisted 
all  changes.  "Our  representation,"  he  said,  "has  been 
found  perfectly  adequate  to  all  the  purposes  for  which 

1  Lord  Chatham,  p.  119. 
1   2  Parliament,  Its  History,  Constitution,  and  Practice,  pp.  42,  43. 


4        THE  ROUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

a  representation  of  the  people  can  be  desired  or  devised." 
He  thought  the  variety  of  franchises  in  the  boroughs, 
and  the  mode  in  which  constituencies  were  controlled, 
represented  the  various  interests  of  the  nation  and  its 
ruling  forces.  If  a  candidate,  not  so  fortunate  as  Burke, 
failed  to  find  a  patron,  or  refused  to  be  dependent  on 
one,  he  bought  a  seat,  as  Hume,  Romilly,  and  other  re- 
formers did.  Seats  were  advertised  like  livings  in  the 
Church,  and  sold  during  Burke 's  tune  for  four  hundred 
to  two  thousand  pounds  each.  From  1812  to  the  passage 
of  the  Reform  Act  of  1832  the  price  advanced  to  five 
and  six  thousand  pounds. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  fathers  of  the  new  repub- 
lic avoided  this  sordid  system.  To  prevent  the  nesting 
of  "rotten"  or  "pocket"  boroughs,  they  wisely  provided 
that  districts  be  reapportioned  every  ten  years;  1  that 
representatives  be  chosen  every  two  years;  that  their 
number  should  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty  thousand 
inhabitants,  provided  each  State  have  at  least  one  repre- 
sentative; and  that  every  representative  must,  when 
chosen,  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  State  whence  he  was 
elected.2  The  method  of  choosing  representatives  was 
left  to  legislation  by  the  States  and  at  first  was  not  the 
same  hi  all  of  them.  Massachusetts,  New  York,  Vir- 
ginia, North  Carolina,  and  South  Carolina  were  divided 
into  districts,  each  of  which  chose  one  representative. 
New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jer- 
sey, and  Georgia  elected  their  representatives  on  a  gen- 
eral ticket. 

In  1901  the  law  making  an  apportionment  of  repre- 
1  The  Constitution,  art.  i,  sec.  2.  2  Ibid.,  art.  xiv,  sec.  2. 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  QUALIFICATION    5 

sentatives  in  Congress  among  the  several  States  required  \ 
that  "representatives  should  be  elected  by  districts 
composed  of  contiguous  and  compact  territory,  and 
containing  as  nearly  as  practicable  an  equal  number  of  J 
inhabitants."  1  So,  too,  State  law  and  custom  have 
practically  established  that  a  representative  must  be  a 
resident  of  the  district  from  which  he  is  elected.  Prob- 
ably the  Federal  Supreme  Court  would  not  so  hold,  for 
a  State  cannot  narrow  the  qualification  of  a  Federal 
legislator;  but  thus  far,  districts  have  very  rarely  chosen 
non-residents,  on  the  theory  that  members  should  be 
completely  identified  with  local  interests. 

In  fixing  the  membership  of  each  State,  the  House, 
when  preparing  its  first  apportionment  bill,  divided  the 
population  of  the  State  by  thirty  thousand,  allowing  an 
additional  representative  for  a  fraction  over  one  half 
of  the  divisor  or  ratio.  President  Washington  vetoed 
the  measure,  because  the  use  of  major  fractions  allotted 
to  the  State  more  than  one  member  for  every  thirty 
thousand  inhabitants.  A  second  bill,  fixing  the  ratio  at 
thirty-three  thousand  and  ignoring  fractions,  promptly 
received  executive  approval.  This  disregard  of  frac- 
tions necessarily  deprived  many  States  of  full  represen- 
tation, and  to  avoid  injustice,  apportionment  bills  pre- 
sented under  the  Census  of  1800,  1810,  1820,  and  1830, 
very  cleverly  fixed  a  small  ratio,  which  retained  the 
existing  memberships  in  States  having  the  least  growth. 
Although  these  ratios  doubled  the  membership  of  the 
House,  little  injustice  was  done  except  to  New  England, 
which  had  good  reason  to  protest.  Daniel  Webster,  in 
1  31  Stat.  L.,  pp.  733-34. 


6       THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

1832,  when  a  member  of  the  Senate's  Census  Committee, 
complained  that  the  disuse  of  fractions  left  one  hundred 
and  thirty  thousand  of  its  people  unrepresented,  while 
it  gave  New  York,  with  forty  thousand  less  population, 
two  members  more.  Other  States,  including  Pennsyl- 
vania, similarly  benefited.  President  Washington,  con- 
tinued the  distinguished  senator,  did  not  object  to  re- 
mainders. His  veto  applied  to  their  abuse,  which  could 
be  avoided  by  first  fixing  a  definite  number  of  representa- 
tives for  the  whole  country  as  a  divisor  of  its  aggregate 
population,  the  quotient  thus  becoming  the  ratio  to 
determine  the  membership  from  each  State,  one  repre- 
sentative being  added  for  each  major  fraction.  On  this 
principle  Webster  drafted  a  measure  which  the  Senate 
accepted  as  a  substitute  for  the^gouse^bUL1 

This  met  with  ugly  opposition  in  the  House.  James 
K.  Polk,  of  Tennessee,  chairman  of  the  House  Commit- 
tee, cloaking  his  opposition  under  the  unconstitutional- 
ly of  fractions,  insisted  upon  a  ratio  of  forty-seven 
thousand  seven  hundred.  This  accentuated  the  injus- 
tice to  New  England.  "I  passed  an  entirely  sleepless 
night,"  wrote  John  Quincy  Adams.  "The  iniquity  of 
the  bill  and  the  disreputable  means  by  which  so  partial 
and  unjust  a  distribution  of  the  representation  had  been 
effected,  agitated  me  so  that  I  could  not  close  my  eyes. 
I  was  all  night  meditating  in  search  of  some  device,  if 
it  were  possible,  to  avert  the  heavy  blow  from  Massa- 
chusetts and  from  New  England."  But  the  die  was  cast. 
New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  the  South  benefited,  and 
when  the  House  finally  adopted  the  Committee  report, 
Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Gales  and  Seaton's  Register,  pp.  487-90. 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  QUALIFICATION    7 

Adams  "hung  his  harp  upon  the  willow."  1  In  the  end 
the  Senate  also  yielded.  This  gave  Webster  the  oppor- 
tunity of  charging,  in  his  incomparably  impressive  man- 
ner, that  the  Senate  had  lost  the  chance  of  securing  the 
relative  rights  of  the  States,  for  the  preservation  of 
which  it  was  solely  responsible.2  When  the  House,  in 
1840,  again  adopted  a  low  ratio  without  fractions,  swell- 
ing its  membership  to  three  hundred  and  six,  the  prin- 
ciple discriminated  against  other  sections,  and  in  the 
heat  of  a  ten  days'  debate,  Folk's  artificial  and  uncandid 
arguments  quickly  turned  to  ashes.  Fractions  suddenly 
became  constitutional,  and  Webster's  method,  dropping 
the  House  membership  to  two  hundred  and  twenty- 
three,  met  hearty  approval. 

The  feeling  generally  obtained  that  the  House  mem- 
bership had  increased  too  rapidly.  In  the  debate  of  1832 
Webster  predicted  that  by  the  natural  operation  of 
events  the  old  States  must  part  with  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  their  representation,  and  although  the  Webster 
bill  reduced  the  aggregate  twenty-seven  per  cent,  many 
thought  the  number  still  too  large  for  a  population  of 
less  than  seventeen  millions.  It  overcrowded  the  old 
hall,  already  rearranged  and  reseated,  and  added  greatly 
to  the  confusion.  Accordingly  in  1850  the  House  man- 
aged to  keep  the  membership  down  to  two  hundred  and 
thirty-four.  In  1860  it  was  increased  to  two  hundred 
and  forty-one. 

Then  came  the  present  period  of  selfish  combination. 
Older  Commonwealths  of  slow  growth,  for  the  purpose 

1  Diary,  vol.  vm,  pp.  471-72. 

8  22d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Register,  p.  935. 


8       THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 


of  retaining  their  existing  numbers,  joined  younger 
States  ambitious  for  an  increase.  In  twenty  years  this 
arrangement  swelled  the  membership  forty-eight  per 
cent,  a  greater  increase  than  had  occurred  in  the  preced- 
ing seventy  years.  The  champions  of  reform  in  1902 
demonstrated  that  a  smaller  number  would  result  in 
economy,  in  freedom  from  confusion,  in  decreased  power 
of  committees,  larger  opportunity  for  the  individual, 
and  less  rigid  rules.  To  these  reasons  were  added  the 
admonition  of  James  Bryce,  the  distinguished  English 
writer,  that  "when  the  number  of  the  assembly  rises  to 
one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred,  a  new  element 
of  trouble  is  introduced  in  the  excitement  produced  by 
the  sympathy  of  a  multitude,  under  whose  influence 
men  will  say  and  do  things  which  the  judgment  of  a  sin- 
gle man,  or  a  small  group,  would  at  once  condemn."  1 
The  admitted  benefits  of  a  small  body,  however,  could 
not  compete  in  parliamentary  authority  with  the  com- 
bination of  decadent  and  ambitious  States,  and  it  added 
thirty-four  members.  In  1911  similar  methods  increased 
the  number  to  four  hundred  and  thirty-three.2  The  re- 
tirement of  desks  and  the  use  of  benches  tend  to  lessen 
confusion  and  to  give  working  members  better  oppor- 
tunity for  transacting  business;  but  the  reforms  so  force- 
fully voiced  in  the  instructive  debate  of  1902  are  not 
likely  to  be  realized  until  thinly  populated  States  learn 

1  North  American  Review,  vol.  151,  p.  386. 

2  Apportionments  resulted  as  follows:  — 


Apportion- 
ment 

Number  of 
members 

1787 
63 

1790 
105 

1800 
141 

1810 
181 

1820 
212 

1830 
240 

1840 
223 

1850 
234 

1860 
241 

1870 
293 

1880 
325 

1890 
857 

1900 
391 

1910 
433 

APPORTIONMENT  AND  QUALIFICATION    9 

that  increased  representation  magnifies  rather  than 
minimizes  their  disproportion  with  populous  States. 

Upon  the  passage  of  an  apportionment  bill  a  State 
Legislature  may  reform  the  congressional  districts,  but 
after  their  redivision  Congress  may  preclude  other 
changes  during  the  continuance  of  such  apportionment.1 
If  a  State  fail  or  refuse  to  provide  for  congressional 
representation  Congress  may  do  so,  and  for  the  purpose 
may  determine  the  extent  of  each  district.  But  members 
elected  on  a  general  ticket  will  be  seated,  although  Con- 
gress require  their  election  by  districts.  A  State,  how- 
ever, cannot  disregard  the  law  of  apportionment.  When 
a  Commonwealth  elected  on  a  general  ticket  one  mem- 
ber more  than  the  apportionment  allowed,  the  House 
refused  to  give  prima-facie  effect  to  the  additional  cre- 
dential.2 In  1879  the  clerk  declined  to  enroll  a  represen- 
tative-at-large  to  which  the  State  was  not  entitled.3  On 
one  occasion  when  a  State,  entitled  to  two  members, 
elected  three  on  a  general  ticket,  the  House  excluded 
the  one  receiving  the  fewest  votes.4  But  the  House 
rarely  refuses  to  accept  regular  credentials  when  chal- 
lenged simply  for  the  reason  that  a  district  exceeds 
statutory  limitations,  and  in  one  instance  it  refused  to 
examine  whether  or  not  a  county  was  technically  en- 
titled to  be  included  within  a  district.6  Such  action, 
however,  like  decisions  in  contested  election  cases,  is 
too  often  prompted  by  partisan  reasons. 

1  31st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  House  Report  no.  3. 

2  40th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  8-9. 

3  46th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4. 

4  37th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  2. 

5  44th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Report  no.  39. 


10     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Respecting  the  qualifications  of  a  representative,  the 
Constitution  provides  that  he  shall  be  twenty-five  years 
old,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  for  seven  years,  and 
an  inhabitant,  when  elected,  of  the  State  in  which  he  is 
chosen.1  To  these  qualifications  a  State  may  not  add,2 
but  the  House  will  refuse  to  permit  a  member  elect  to 
be  sworn,  if  insane,  disloyal,  a  polygamist,  or  a  criminal. 
It  can  also  do  whatever  else  may  seem  wise  to  the  major- 
ity, regardless  of  objections  technical  or  meritorious. 
Nevertheless,  in  carrying  out  the  expressed  will  of  the 
people,  the  House,  except  in  contested  election  cases, 
usually  endeavors  to  act  justly.  Without  refusing  ad- 
mission to  a  member  elect  under  age,  it  deferred  his 
enrollment  until  he  could  qualify.  It  held  a  foreign-born 
citizen  eligible,  whom  a  State  court,  not  expressly  au- 
thorized by  the  Federal  statutes,  had  naturalized.  In 
like  manner  it  permitted  a  member,  long  a  resident  of 
the  country,  but  without  naturalization  papers,  to  hold 
his  seat.  Actual  residence  in  a  State  at  the  time  of  a 
member's  election  is  not  essential,3  nor  does  residence 
abroad  while  obtaining  an  education  or  serving  the  Gov- 
ernment, constitute  disqualification.  Credentials  need 
not  conform  to  law  if  no  doubt  exists  as  to  an  election. 
For  this  reason  the  House  overruled  a  State  official, 
who  rejected  a  county  return  because  of  a  writing  on  the 
seal  of  the  clerk's  certificate,  and  it  admitted  members 
elected  on  a  day  other  than  the  legal  day.  Equity  rules 
likewise  govern  the  rights  of  a  Territorial  delegate,  an 

1  Art.  i,  sec.  2. 

2  34th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Report  no.  194;  48th  Cong.,  1st 
Sess.,  House  Report  no.  794. 

8  10th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  pp.  2,  6. 


APPORTIONMENT  AND  QUALIFICATION    11 

office  created  by  the  Continental  Congress.    It  is  held    \ 
broadly  that  a  person  elected  before  a  Territory  has  com- 
pleted its  statehood  may  become  a  member  of  the  House 
whenever  the  new  State  is  admitted,  but  any  part  of  the 
Territory  not  included  in  the  new  State  must  be  reorgan- 
ized before  it  is  again  entitled  to  representation.    The 
qualifications  of  a  delegate  in  no  wise  differ  from  those     * 
of  a  member,  and  although  the  former  cannot  vote  he 
enjoys  all  other  privileges. 

No  person  holding  an  office  under  the  United  States 
can  become  a  member  of  Congress,  the  term  "office" 
being  limited  to  the  power  to  legislate,  to  execute  law, 
or  to  hear  and  determine  judicially.  In  other  words,  an 
officer  is  one  having  power  to  bind  the  Government. 
This  limitation  does  not  exclude  regents  and  other  repre- 
sentatives of  public  institutions,  or  Government  agents 
or  commissioners  authorized  simply  to  investigate  and 
report.  Neither  is  a  Government  contractor  an  officer  of 
the  United  States.  A  postmaster  or  other  Federal  office- 
holder, if  elected  to  Congress,  need  not  resign  before 
taking  his  seat,  and,  if  he  be  a  contestant,  not  until  the 
House  declares  him  entitled  to  the  place. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  ROLL   OF  MEMBERS   ELECT 

AN  important  step  in  the  organization  of  a  new 
House,  and  one  fraught,  perhaps,  with  the  most  serious 
consequences,  is  the  compilation  of  a  temporary  roll  of 
members  elect.  This  roll  is  made  up  by  the  clerk  of  the 
preceding  House  from  certificates  of  election  filed  with 
him,  which,  on  their  face,  must  be  regular  in  form,  issued 
within  the  time  required  by  law,  and  specific  as  to  the 
persons  elected.  It  is  used  during  the  election  of  a 
Speaker,  and  members  whose  names  do  not  appear  upon 
it  cannot  participate  in  the  proceedings  except  by  the 
vote  of  a  majority  of  those  enrolled.  The  maker  of  this 
roll,  therefore,  possesses  a  power  like  to  that  of  a  na- 
tional committee  at  a  national  political  convention,  and, 
if  opportunity  offers  to  pad  the  list,  he  may,  if  so  dis- 
posed, exercise  his  prerogative  by  enrolling  a  sufficient 
number  of  his  own  party  to  constitute  a  majority,  who 
can  immediately  proceed  to  elect  a  Speaker  and  organ- 
ize the  House.  Such  power  is  the  more  drastic  since  an 
appeal  is  limited  to  the  members  so  enrolled. 

By  an  ordinance  passed  in  1785  the  Continental  Con- 
gress imposed  this  responsible  duty  upon  the  secretary 
of  the  preceding  Congress.  It  also  made  him  the  pre- 
siding officer  until  the  election  of  a  president.  In  1791 
the  House  of  Representatives  continued  this  arrange- 
ment, but  to  control  the  preparation  of  the  roll  it  pro- 
vided for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  examine 


THE  ROLL  OF  MEMBERS  ELECT        13 

and  report  upon  all  credentials.  After  a  time  this  admi- 
rable procedure  fell  into  disuse.  Indeed,  so  little  atten- 
tion was  given  to  credentials  that  members  took  their 
seats  without  presenting  any  evidence  of  their  right  to 
do  so,  while  the  clerk,  in  making  up  his  roll,  depended 
largely  upon  newspaper  reports.  Adams  says  that  the 
names  enrolled  by  the  clerk  at  the  opening  of  the  Twen- 
ty-fifth Congress  were  thus  gathered,  "not  one  member 
in  ten  having  a  certificate."  l  To  avoid  "  such  an  exceed- 
ingly irregular  practice,"  Adams  presented  a  resolution 
requiring  credentials  to  be  filed  with  the  clerk  and  lim- 
iting the  roll  to  those  complying  with  the  rule.  Although 
the  House  failed  to  adopt  this  proposition,  its  consider- 
ation seems  to  have  revived  the  custom  of  filing  creden- 
tials; but  it  left  the  clerk  of  a  House  which  had  ceased 
to  be  the  sole  arbiter  in  determining  the  membership  of 
a  House  that  is  to  be. 

Distrust  of  such  a  procedure  very  soon  manifested 
itself.  Scattered  through  the  record  are  entertaining 
examples  of  oratorical  sarcasm,  minimizing  the  old 
clerk's  authority  and  questioning  his  honesty.  As 
early  as  1820,  John  Randolph,  of  Virginia,  charged 
him  with  an  offensive  assumption  of  power  because  he 
refused  to  put  a  motion.2  John  S.  Millson,  of  the 
same  State,  was  no  less  severe.  "The  clerk,"  he  said, 
"is  not  the  presiding  officer  of  this  House  in  any  sense 
of  the  word.  He  has  no  more  control  and  exercises  no 
other  function  than  the  reading  clerk.  He  is  simply  a 
mouthpiece." 3  In  1837,  Caleb  Cushing,  of  Massachu- 

1  J.  Q.  Adams,  Diary,  vol.  ix,  p.  366  (1837). 

2  16th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Annals,  pp.  437-38. 

3  36th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  66. 


14     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

setts,  charging  deliberately,  with  much  feeling,  that  the 
clerk  had  padded  the  roll  with  members  of  whose  elec- 
tion there  was  no  authentic  information,  insisted  that 
one  of  their  own  number  should  preside.1  Henry  A. 
Wise,  of  Virginia,  who,  according  to  Adams,  possessed 
"the  tartness,  the  bitterness,  the  malignity,  and  the  in- 
consistencies of  John  Randolph,"  2  was  aware,  he  said, 
that  usage  had  authorized  the  clerk  of  the  preceding 
House  to  prepare  a  roll  and  to  officiate  at  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  new  House,  but  the  precedent  had  no  force. 
"There  is  no  clerk  of  this  House.  Neither  do  the  orders 
of  a  preceding  House  have  any  validity.  Nothing  can 
supersede  the  constitutional  right  of  the  House  to  adopt 
its  own  method  of  organization."  3  Wise  was  correct 
in  his  view,  but  the  majority,  preferring  a  tool  to  an  im- 
partial presiding  officer,  tabled  a  resolution  that  Lewis 
Williams,  of  North  Carolina,  the  oldest  member  in  point 
of  service,  be  appointed  chairman  to  serve  until  the 
election  of  a  Speaker. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  such  power,  vested  in  a 
partisan  clerk,  would  sooner  or  later  be  used  in  a  close 
election  to  determine  arbitrarily  the  political  complexion 
of  the  House,  and  in  the  historic  crisis  of  1839  this  con- 
dition appeared  in  a  highly  developed  form.  The  old 
clerk,  Hugh  A.  Garland,  whom  Gushing  had  denounced 
in  the  preceding  Congress,  discovered  that  by  omitting 
the  names  of  all  contestants  from  New  Jersey  the  roll 
would  stand  one  hundred  and  eighteen  in  favor  of  his 

1  25th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  1-3. 
8  J.  Q.  Adams,  Diary,  vol.  ix,  p.  88. 
«  25th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  1-3. 


THE  ROLL  OF  MEMBERS  ELECT        15 

own  party,  a  sufficient  number  to  elect  a  Speaker. 
Accordingly,  when  New  Jersey  was  reached  in  the  roll 
call,  Garland  cunningly  explained  that  as  he  had  no 
authority  to  settle  contests  he  would  complete  the  call 
and  then  submit  the  New  Jersey  matter  to  the  House 
for  its  decision.  It  was  a  canny  maneuver.  The  comple- 
tion of  the  roll  would  constitute  a  quorum  and  put  the 
control  absolutely  into  the  hands  of  his  friends,  who 
could  immediately  organize  the  House.  John  Quincy 
Adams  saw  the  trick.  "This  movement,"  he  wrote,  "has 
evidently  been  prepared  to  exclude  the  five  rightful  New 
Jersey  members  from  voting  for  Speaker,  and  the  clerk 
has  his  lesson  prepared  for  him.  His  own  election  de- 
pends upon  their  exclusion."  1 

An  acrimonious  debate  followed.  To  add  to  the  ex- 
citement the  clerk,  in  the  absence  of  a  declared  quorum 
and  without  unanimous  consent,  refused  to  put  any 
question  except  a  motion  to  adjourn.  In  other  words, 
says  Adams,  "he  stops  calling  the  roll  before  a  quorum 
is  established  and  refuses  to  put  any  question  until  a 
quorum  is  formed."  2  To  solve  the  difficulty  members 
voiced  various  expedients  side-tracking  the  election  of 
a  Speaker  until  the  settlement  of  the  New  Jersey  con- 
tests. One  proposed  establishing  a  quorum  by  calling 
the  uncontested  names;  another  suggested  choosing  a 
temporary  chairman  and  a  committee  on  elections;  a 
third  insisted  upon  calling  the  names  of  claimants  who 
bore  the  Governor's  certificates  with  the  broad  seal  of 
the  State  and  allowing  only  the  uncontested  members 
to  vote  upon  their  admission.  The  clerk  refused  to  put 
1  Diary,  vol.  x,  p.  143.  *  Ibid. 


16     THE  HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES 

any  of  these  propositions.  His  evident  effort  to  estab- 
lish a  quorum  without  the  admission  of  the  New  Jersey 
members  finally  became  so  intolerable  that  Adams,  in 
an  eloquent  appeal,  deeply  stirred  the  House,  urging 
it  to  seat  the  "broad  seal"  delegation.  "But  who  will 
put  the  question?  "  inquired  a  colleague.  " I  will  put  the 
question  myself,"  thundered  Adams.1 

The  preeminence  of  Adams  was  acknowledged.  He 
abounded  in  wit  at  once  genial  and  penetrating.  His 
scorn  of  all  pettiness  made  him  disdain  jobbery.  Even 
the  subtler  arts  of  parliamentary  manipulation,  except 
the  breaking  of  a  quorum,  did  not  appeal  to  him.  There 
was  much  in  him  also  that  was  sublime.  He  was  a  puis- 
sant orator.  His  comprehensive  grasp  of  European 
statecraft  and  his  capacity  for  taking  broad,  high  views 
made  his  achievements  world-wide.  To  distinguished 
service  and  exalted  station  he  united  superb  qualities  of 
intellect  developed  by  ardent  study,  which  splendidly 
equipped  him  for  the  highest  public  usefulness,  and  at 
this  supreme  moment  in  a  parliamentary  crisis  his  in- 
trepid spirit  marked  him  out  among  the  feebler  men 
about  him.  It  also  inspired  them.  Even  R.  Barnwell 
Rhett,of  South  Carolina,  whom  Adams  subsequently  de- 
scribed as  "  a  painted  Administration  butterfly,"  fired  by 
the  firmness  and  patriotism  of  the  appeal,  asked  the  clerk 
if  he  would  now  put  the  questions.  Garland  hesitated. 
He  had  seen  the  House  aroused  in  the  preceding  Con- 
gress. He  had  heard  Cushing's  ugly  charge,  the  penetrat- 
ing opinion  of  Wise,  and  the  spectacular  speech  of  Rhett, 
whose  "enunciation  was  so  rapid,  inarticulate,  and  vo- 
1  26th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  19. 


THE  ROLL  OF  MEMBERS  ELECT        17 

ciferous  that  his  head  hung  back  as  he  spoke,  with  his 
face  turned  upward  like  that  of  a  howling  dog."  1  In 
the  midst  of  such  strange,  exciting  scenes  Garland  had 
also  observed  his  friends  pull  the  strings  that  tabled 
the  resolution  superseding  him.  Could  they  do  so  again, 
he  wondered?  He  scented  a  political  catastrophe,  but 
he  could  scarcely  bring  himself  to  bend.  He  was  unwill- 
ing, he  said,  to  put  any  question  except  a  motion  to  ad- 
journ, but,  if  so  instructed,  he  would  act  as  the  chair- 
man of  a  meeting  of  gentlemen  and  put  questions. 
To  this  William  Cost  Johnson,  of  Maryland,  wittily 
objected.  "We  are  gentlemen,"  said  he,  "but  this  is 
evidently  not  a  meeting  of  gentlemen."  Then  Rhett 
moved  that  John  Quincy  Adams  be  made  chairman,  and, 
putting  the  motion  himself,  declared  it  carried,  while 
two  members  rushed  the  "old  man  eloquent"  to  the 
chair.  The  adoption  of  the  rules  of  the  last  House  fol- 
lowed. 

The  affair  greatly  exasperated  the  Administration 
party.  Indeed,  the  noisy  scene  excited  grave  apprehen- 
sion that  Garland,  encouraged  by  the  support  of  his 
backers,  would  again  attempt  to  preside.  To  prevent 
such  a  coup  d'Stat,  Adams  took  the  chair  promptly  at 
twelve  o'clock  each  day,  and  by  his  firmness  and  great 
fairness  finally  conquered  opposition.  He  did  not  con- 
ceal his  desire  to  admit  the  New  Jersey  members,  whose 
exclusion  he  accepted  as  a  political  trick  to  defeat  the 
election  of  John  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  but  after  members 
had  voted  he  compelled  obedience  to  the  mandate. 
Finally,  at  the  end  of  six  days  of  stormy  debate  and 
1  J.  Q.  Adams,  Diary,  vol.  ix,  p.  386. 


18     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

bluster  the  House  elected  Robert  M.  T.  Hunter,  of  Vir- 
ginia, "an  amiable,  good-hearted,  weak-headed  young 
man,  prematurely  hoisted  into  a  place  for  which  he  is 
not  fit."  l  Thus,  "in  consequence  of  the  adroitness  of 
one  party  (itself  the  minority  in  fact)  five  duly  returned 
members  from  one  of  the  States  were  excluded  from 
their  seats,  and  the  power  of  the  House  thrown  into  the 
hands  of  the  minority  for  the  whole  of  that  Congress. 
It  was  a  great  usurpation,  a  palpable  violation  of  the 
Constitution  —  only  acquiesced  in  because  there  was 
no  remedy  short  of  revolution."  2  In  reward  for  his 
partisan  roll-making  Garland  again  became  clerk. 
"Had  the  five  New  Jersey  men  voted,"  says  Adams,  "a 
tie  vote  would  have  prevented  his  choice.  He  stands 
self-elected  by  the  baseness  of  his  treachery  to  his 
trust."  3 

Nevertheless,  fair  dealing  would  have  cost  Garland  the 
confidence  of  his  party  as  obedience  to  principle  subse- 
quently did  John  W.  Forney.  Forney  was  a  gentleman 
of  the  world.  His  open  and  engaging  demeanor  made 
him  a  charming  companion,  while  his  signal  excellence  as 
a  journalist  added  to  his  prestige.  He  delighted  in  epi- 
gram, was  without  the  slightest  taint  of  snobbery,  and 
led  the  most  congenial  souls  in  Washington.  These  quali- 
ties made  him  serviceable  to  his  party,  and  in  1851  and 
again  in  1853  it  elected  him  clerk  of  the  House.  Thus, 
at  the  historic  opening  of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress 
(1855),  Forney  inherited  the  difficult  task  of  organizing 

1  Diary,  vol.  x,  p.  379. 

*  National  Intelligencer  (Washington),  December  17,  1849. 

»  Diary,  vol.  x,  p.  172. 


THE  ROLL  OF  MEMBERS  ELECT        19 

a  body  in  which  no  party  had  a  majority  and  no  mem- 
ber was  without  a  vote,  for  in  preparing  the  prelim- 
inary roll  of  members  elect  his  conscience  could  not  be 
silenced  by  office  or  honors. 

During  those  exciting  sixty  days,  he  wrote  years 
afterward,  "  My  position  was  most  peculiar.  I  was  one 
of  the  editors  of  the  Washington  Union,  the  organ  of 
President  Pierce,  and  the  active  advocate  of  James 
Buchanan  for  the  Presidential  succession,  and  I  was  also 
the  personal  friend  of  Andrew  H.  Reeder,  who  had  just 
been  removed  from  the  governorship  of  Kansas  for  re- 
fusing to  join  the  conspiracy  to  force  slavery  into  that 
Territory.  Our  relations  had  not  changed,  and  I  had 
earnestly,  but  vainly,  protested  against  his  sacrifice.  He 
was  on  the  floor  contesting  the  seat  of  J.  W.  Whitfield, 
who  had  secured  the  certificate  as  a  delegate  from  Kan- 
sas. The  struggle  for  the  Presidency  was  at  fever  heat. 
The  South  was  wrought  to  the  highest  pitch  of  excite- 
ment. The  bold  attitude  of  the  Free-State  men  in  Con* 
gress  and  the  country,  the  extraordinary  proceedings  in 
Kansas,  and  the  closeness  of  parties  in  the  House,  added 
to  the  other  perplexities  of  my  position.  The  opposi- 
tion looked  upon  me  with  a  very  natural  distrust,  and 
the  Democrats  relied  upon  me  to  exert  every  influence  to 
forward  their  designs.  Their  hatred  of  my  friend  Reeder 
was  terrible,  and  I  soon  found  that  my  unconcealed 
confidence  in  him  made  me  an  object  of  general  distrust 
among  the  Southern  leaders.  Cobb  and  Stephens,  of 
Georgia;  Garnett  and  Faulkner,  of  Virginia;  Rust,  of 
Arkansas;  Jones,  of  Tennessee;  Alexander  K.  Marshall 
and  Burnett,  of  Kentucky;  Barksdale,  of  Mississippi; 


20     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

George  S.  Houston,  of  Alabama;  Keitt  and  Brooks  and 
Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  backed  in  the  Senate  by  Slidell, 
Toombs,  Iverson,  J.  M.  Mason,  Hammond,  Butler,  Wig- 
fall,  Benjamin,  Yulee,  and  C.  C.  Clay,  and  in  the  Cabinet 
by  Jefferson  Davis,  believed  if  they  lost  the  House  all 
was  imperiled.  Every  day  the  same  scene  was  enacted. 
.  .  .  But  members  soon  saw  that  I  was  resolved  to  act 
honestly  at  every  hazard."  1 

The  dominating  politicians,  piqued  by  Forney's  even- 
handed  justice,  seriously  thought  of  making  James  L. 
Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  the  presiding  officer.  In  fact, 
the  previous  question  had  been  demanded  on  such  a 
motion  when  some  one  moved  a  recess.  Johsua  R.  Gid- 
dings,  of  Ohio,  thought  the  motion  incompetent  pending 
a  demand  for  the  previous  question,  but  Forney  thought 
otherwise,  and  the  tired  members,  worn  out  with  inter- 
minable ballotings,  points  of  order,  debates,  and  threats 
of  violence,  sustained  his  ruling.2  This  gave  time  for 
sleep,  and  the  motion  to  promote  Orr  was  not  again 
offered.  Forney  continued  to  guide  the  proceedings 
until  February  3  (1856),  when  the  House,  on  the  one 
hundred  and  thirty-third  ballot,  elected  Nathaniel  P. 
Banks,  of  Massachusetts,  for  Speaker.3 

Forney  got  out  of  his  "thankless"  job  very  well 
financially,  for  the  House  doubled  his  salary; 4  but  the 
fierce  asaults  upon  his  rulings  filled  him  with  resent- 

1  J.  W.  Forney,  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  p.  110. 

2  34th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  87. 

8  Banks  received  103  votes  to  100  for  William  Aiken,  of  South 
Carolina. 

4  Forney  was  reflected  clerk  of  the  House  in  1860,  and  the  Senate, 
at  President  Lincoln's  solicitation,  made  him  its  secretary  in  1861. 


THE  ROLL  OF  MEMBERS  ELECT        21 

ment,  and  he  seemed  never  to  tire  of  exploiting  the 
frailties  of  his  persecutors.  Of  those  named  in  the  above 
list  he  thought  Davis  the  sternest  in  his  convictions; 
Jones  the  most  acrid;  Houston  the  noisiest;  Keitt  the 
most  quarrelsome;  Hammond  of  the  least  account; 
Mason,  "with  his  Dombey  diction  and  pompous  pre- 
tense," the  most  dictatorial;  Slidell,  supercilious  and 
satirical,  "a  scheming  politician  of  undoubted  courage, 
yet  never  a  statesman,"  the  most  implacable  in  his  hos- 
tility to  all  who  did  not  agree  with  him;  Wigfall,  thun- 
dering his  anathemas,  the  boldest  and  coarsest;  Toombs, 
a  stormy  petrel,  often  grand  as  a  declaimer,  always 
intolerant,  dogmatic,  extreme,  and  threatening.  Of 
Orr  and  Benjamin  and  Soule  and  Howell  Cobb  he 
had  few  words  of  censure.  To  him  Orr  was  the  best-tem- 
pered of  the  able  ultras  of  the  South,  and  Benjamin  the 
possessor  of  those  rare  qualities  which  characterized 
Henry  Winter  Davis,  of  Maryland,  whose  incisive  sen- 
tences and  ready  wit  were  admirably  reinforced  by  acute 
reasoning  powers  and  legal  training.  "Benjamin's  hand- 
some Jewish  face,  his  liquid  tones,  and  easy  enunciation 
contrasted  well  with  his  skill  as  a  debater  and  his  ac- 
curacy as  a  student."  The  one  man  whom  Benjamin 
most  disliked,  continues  Forney,  was  "poor  Pierre 
Soule,  the  brilliant  and  superficial  Frenchman,  whose 
swarthy  complexion,  black,  flashing  eyes,  and  Frenchi- 
fied dress  and  speech  made  him  the  chief  attraction  of 
the  Senate.  He  was  an  artificial  man  —  brilliant  in 
repartee,  yet  subject  to  fits  of  melancholy;  impetuous, 
yet  reserved;  proud,  but  polite,  with  a  vast  fund  of 
knowledge  and  a  deposit  of  vanity  which  was  never 


22     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

exhausted."  Although  Forney  included  Howell  Cobb  in 
his  list  of  tormentors,  he  seemed  to  remember  him  with- 
out bitterness.  He  thought  of  him  as  a  different  type 
from  the  others.  "Like  John  C.  Breckinridge,"  said  this 
delightful  and  gossipy  writer,  "Cobb  never  persecuted 
the  men  of  his  party  who  refused  to  endorse  extreme 
measures;  yet  he  was  most  resolute  in  behalf  of  his  State 
and  section."  * 

Forney's  successors,  profiting  by  his  experience,  have 
found  it  easier  and  less  precarious  to  submit  all  questions 
to  the  House.  They  have  even  declined  to  call  members 
to  order  when  not  confining  their  remarks  to  the  subject, 
thus  creating  scenes  of  great  confusion  and  contributing 
to  prolong  the  period  of  organization.  The  speakership 
contest  of  1860,  rivaling  in  threats  and  bitterness  all 
previous  exhibitions  of  partisan  and  sectional  anger, 
forced  the  House  to  adopt  the  rule  that  "pending  the 
election  of  a  Speaker,  the  clerk  shall  preserve  order  and 
decorum,  and  decide  all  questions  of  order  that  may 
arise,  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the  House."  2  To  add  to 
the  clerk's  power  and  prestige  an  act,  passed  on  the  last 
legislative  day  of  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress,  declared 
that  "before  the  meeting  of  each  Congress  the  clerk  of 
the  next  preceding  House  shall  make  a  roll  of  the  repre- 
sentatives elect,  and  place  thereon  the  names  of  those 
persons  only  whose  credentials  show  that  they  were 
regularly  elected  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  their 
States  respectively,  or  the  laws  of  the  United  States."  3 

1  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  p.  41. 

1  Adopted  March  9,  1860.  Rule  ra,  sec.  1. 

»  14  Stat.  L.,  p.  396. 


THE  ROLL  OF  MEMBERS  ELECT        23 

Under  this  law  the  clerk  may  decline  to  enroll  a  member    \ 
elect  if  his  credentials  are  informal,  or  in  excess  of  the    I 
apportionment,  or  indefinite  as  to  returns;  or  if  they  / 
challenge  the  legality  of  an  election,  the  citizenship  of  a/ 
claimant,  or  the  sufficiency  of  his  age.   During  the  or-^ 
ganization  of  the  House  the  clerk  may  also  refuse  to 
recognize  members  whose  names  are  not  upon  his  roll;  1 
or  to  allow  interruption  while  calling  the  roll;  2   or  to 
permit  an  amendment  of  the  roll  until  after  the  elec- 
tion of  a  Speaker.3    In   theory  the  House  may  on 
appeal  correct  clerical  usurpations,  but  since  such  mis- 
takes are  committed  for  the  purpose  of  putting  the 
clerk's  party  in  power,  "he  would  be  a  sanguine  man, 
indeed,"  writes  Speaker  Reed,  "who  hoped  to  see  a 
wrong  repudiated  which  was  thus  premeditated  and 
profitable."  4 

For  this  reason  the  clerk  of  the  preceding  House  is 
often  an  object  of  suspicion.  Forney's  case  was  not  an 
exceptional  one.  Whenever  parties  are  closely  divided 
his  roll  tends  to  discredit  his  fairness,  while  his  rulings, 
even  if  he  strictly  follows  precedent,  usually  arouse 
resentment.  This  was  more  evident  after  the  statute 
fixed  his  status,  since  it  occasionally  contributes  to  an 
undue  assumption  of  superiority.  In  1863,  when  un- 
seemly haste  seemed  to  characterize  the  organization  of 
the  House,  William  S.  Holman  felt  the  sting  of  such  ar- 
rogance. The  majority,  without  waiting  to  hear  the 
clerk's  reasons  for  omitting  certain  members  from  his 

1  39th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  2.  2  Ibid. 

8  45th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  53. 

4  North  American  Review,  vol.  151,  p.  113. 


24     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

roll,  moved  their  admission.  As  the  Indianian  raised  the 
point  that  it  was  not  in  order  to  instruct  the  clerk  as  to 
his  duties,  that  official  quickly  overruled  him  and  put 
the  motion,  the  House  remaining  ignorant  of  the  reason 
for  his  original  action.1  Having  made  up  the  roll  in  1867, 
McPherson,  clerk  of  the  last  House,  declined  to  enter- 
tain any  proposition  for  modifying  it.2  James  Brooks, 
of  New  York,  rising  to  a  question  of  order,  spoke  of 
the  clerk's  omission  to  call  the  names  of  members  elect 
from  Louisiana  and  Georgia.  Thereupon  McPherson 
declared  him  out  of  order,  declined  to  entertain  an 
appeal,  and  directed  him  to  take  his  seat.3  Prior  to  the 
election  of  Speaker  Randall  in  1877,  Eugene  Hale,  of 
Maine,  rising  to  a  question  of  the  highest  privilege,  pro- 
posed substituting  one  name  for  another  on  the  clerk's 
roll.  Samuel  S.  Cox,  of  New  York,  made  the  point  of 
order  that  "  the  clerk  had  absolute  control  over  the  roll 
of  the  House,"  whereupon  George  M.  Adams,  of  Ken- 
tucky, the  clerk,  sustained  the  point  and  declined  to 
entertain  an  appeal,  declaring  it  "not  competent  for 
representatives  elect,  in  their  unorganized  capacity, 
either  to  instruct  the  clerk  how  he  shall  perform  a 
duty  which  the  law  has  imposed  upon  him,  or  to  take 
it  out  of  the  hands  of  the  clerk  and  themselves  per- 
form the  duty  which  the  law  has  said  the  clerk  shall 
perform."  4 

It  is  clear  that  the  inherent  right  of  the  House  under 
the  Constitution  to  make  its  rules  and  elect  its  officers 

1  38th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  4-6. 
*  40th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  3-4. 
8  41st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  4. 
4  45th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  53. 


THE  ROLL  OF  MEMBERS  ELECT        25 

cannot  be  limited  by  the  Act  of  1863, 1  but  "the  law  has 
thus  far  been  acquiesced  in,"  says  Speaker  Reed,  "be- 
cause of  the  fear  that  any  other  course  might  lead  to 
chaos."  2  However  this  may  be,  it  is  most  fortunate, 
perhaps,  that  for  many  years  decisive  elections  have 
settled  the  political  status  of  each  new  House  long  in 
advance  of  its  organization,  since  it  is  not  pleasant  to 
contemplate  what  might  occur  in  a  House  of  greatly  in- 
creased membership  should  a  bold  hold-over  clerk  like 
Garland,  regardless  of  fair  dealing,  prepare  a  roll  of 
members  which  gave  his  own  party  the  requisite  number 
to  elect  a  Speaker  and  thus  organize  the  House. 

1  42d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  11, 117;  but  see,  also,  44th  Cong., 
2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  1156. 

2  North  American  Review,  vol.  151,  p.  113. 


CHAPTER  m 

ORGANIZATION   OF   THE  HOUSE 

To  the  visitor  who  cares  for  history  no  place  in  the 
country  inspires  deeper  interest  than  the  Capitol  at 
Washington,  surmounted  by  its  famous  dome,  and  no 
occasion,  perhaps,  unless  it  be  the  inauguration  of  a 
President,  contributes  more  pleasure  than  the  organi- 
zation of  the  House.  Richly  dressed  ladies  garland  the 
galleries;  foreign  diplomats,  glittering  with  emblems 
of  their  order,  occupy  boxes  set  apart  for  their  use;  and 
long  rows  of  spectators  from  all  parts  of  the  country, 
packed  and  orderly,  add  a  holiday  character  to  the  scene. 
In  the  House  of  Commons  lady  visitors  sit  behind  an 
iron  grille  as  if  the  wives  of  Mohammedans,  but  in  the 
American  House  they  are  openly  welcomed.  On  excep- 
tional days  they  appear  in  the  press  gallery,  and  on 
rarest  occasions  have  even  dared  to  view  the  brilliant 
scene  from  the  rail  that  guards  the  hall  itself. 

On  the  floor  of  the  great  chamber  are  gathered  several 
hundred  eager  politicians,  —  not  more  intelligent  than 
any  equal  number  of  selected  professional  and  business 
men,  or  better  speakers  than  are  found  in  any  large 
assembly  of  clerical  or  legal  representatives;  but  as  "the 
House"  they  constitute  a  body  more  interesting  than 
any  other  in  the  country.  The  individual  is  nothing. 
The  presence  of  a  few  highly  distinguished  ones  of  whom 
every  one  knows  lends  an  interest,  but  they  are  not  the 
loadstone.  It  is  "the  House"  that  attracts.  What  is 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE        27 

"the  House"?  An  aggregation  of  vigorous  elements, 
having  different  objects,  antagonistic  notions,  and 
selfish  interests,  centered  about  indefinite  party  policies 
and  moved  by  personal,  political,  and  sometimes  patri- 
otic purposes.  In  appearance  it  is  constantly  changing. 
Often  half  a  dozen  members  are  "the  House"  —  not 
infrequently  nearly  half  a  thousand.  From  a  trifling 
expense  for  printing  it  may  pass  to  the  consideration  of 
a  policy  that  divides  the  nation  into  halves.  At  one 
moment  it  is  calm  like  a  mill-pond  —  in  the  next  as 
boisterous  as  the  Niagara  rapids.  Frequently  it  can  do 
nothing  but  adjourn,  and  often,  although  helpless,  it 
refuses  to  adjourn.  There  is  a  "feeling  of  the  House" 
and  a  "sense  of  the  House."  It  is  a  common  saying  that 
"the  House  has  more  sense  than  any  one  in  it."  It  is 
likewise  full  of  whims.  It  gets  out  of  sorts  and  sulks. 
But  it  is  never  unhitched.  However  dull  it  may  become, 
some  one  is  on  guard,  and  hidden  from  sight  and  from 
the  knowledge  of  spectators,  like  the  delicate  wheels  of 
a  watch,  are  restraining  rules  and  restrictive  precedents ' 
which  safeguard  it  from  the  petulance  of  its  moods  and 
the  violence  of  its  passion.  Moreover,  it  is  always  think- 
ing and  planning  and  talking.  For  days  the  contending 
elements  may  be  as  wide  apart  as  ice  cakes  in  a  swollen 
river,  when  suddenly,  as  if  swept  by  a  cold  wave,  the 
"mind  of  the  House"  is  made  up,  and  the  country  is 
quieted  or  disturbed. 

To  witness  the  organization  of  such  a  body,  though 
simple  and  void  of  the  spectacular,  captivates  all  classes 
—  their  imagination  dwelling  upon  its  history,  its  im- 
portant functions,  its  tremendous  responsibilities,  its 


28     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

incessant  activities,  and  the  picturesque  scenes,  dra- 
matic, pathetic,  and  comic,  which  are  constantly  enter- 
ing into  its  life.  To  many  it  is  a  pleasure  simply  to  sit  in 
a  place  which  has  echoed  the  voices  of  the  starry  spirits 
whose  brilliant  discussions,  scintillations  of  wit,  and  so- 
ber wisdom  have  made  it  a  center  of  historic  memories. 
One  lives  with  the  great  dead,  whose  names  imparted 
inspiration  to  one's  childhood,  or  pointed  the  way  to 
one's  future.  Within  those  massive  walls  men  have 
assembled  who  led  the  nation  during  the  years  when  it 
slowly  raised  itself  from  conscious  independence  to 
assume  its  place  as  a  world  power. 

More  dignity  marks  an  initial  session  than  formerly. 
The  custom  of  wearing  hats  was  discontinued  in  1837. 
Prior  to  that,  members  remained  covered,  though  not 
always  with  the  highly  polished  "topper"  so  familiar 
in  the  House  of  Commons.  Until  1871  it  was  the  practice 
of  members  to  smoke,  giving  the  air  a  grayish  hue. 
Formerly,  too,  admiring  friends  adorned  the  desks  of 
members  with  flowers,  flooding  the  hall  with  a  mass  of 
color  and  incidentally  concealing  the  faces  of  the  benefici- 
aries. But  in  1905,  long  before  the  removal  of  the  desks, 
the  custom  became  obsolete,  thus  leaving  the  House 
ready  for  business  and  giving  visitors  an  opportunity  of 
studying  the  strong  and  weak  features  of  the  men,  who, 
for  a  brief  spell,  are  to  aid  in  making  the  country's  laws. 

But  nothing  of  this  gala-day  spectacle  is  new  to  the 
veteran  of  several  terms  save  the  faces  of  new  members, 
and  nothing  so  sad,  perhaps,  as  the  absence  of  old 
ones.  The  House  grows  accustomed  to  its  losses,  proud 
in  its  conviction  that  no  man  is  indispensable  to  it. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE         29 

Nevertheless,  those  of  Jong  service  know  that  the  place 
is  never  quite  the  same  after  the  loss  of  an  able  leader. 
"Now  that  Mr.  Gladstone  is  no  longer  with  us,"  plain- 
tively writes  a  veteran  Commoner,  "who  can  fill  the 
House  and  hold  the  audience  in  charmed  attention?" 
Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  have  reason 
occasionally  to  feel  as  lonely.  The  promotion  of  Schenck, 
the  defeat  of  McKinley,  the  withdrawal  of  William  L. 
Wilson,  of  West  Virginia,  the  death  of  Randall,  the  res- 
ignation of  Reed,  and  the  transfer  to  the  Senate  of 
Blaine  and  Dawes  and  Hoar  and  Frye  and  Hale  and 
Carlisle  and  Vice-President  Sherman  —  such  changes 
occurring  from  time  to  time  have  made  the  chamber 
seem  lonesome.  These  distinguished  leaders  gave  eclat 
to  debate.  Most  of  them  were  expert  talkers,  trained  in 
a  parliamentary  school,  and  their  words,  like  cooling 
showers  in  August,  often  revived  a  tired  House  and  put 
new  life  into  the  routine.  There  was  about  them  in  the 
heat  of  battle  a  certain  chivalry  of  manner  which  makes 
debate  the  more  effective  and  tends  to  disparage  cheap, 
torrent-like  declamation.  Such  speakers  become  an 
example  to  all,  and  their  departure  leaves  vacancies 
which  only  time  can  fill.  This  was  especially  true  of 
Eppes  and  Lowndes,  of  Clay  and  Evans  and  Bell,  of 
Blaine  and  Garfield  and  Randall  and  Reed.  They  occu- 
pied so  large  a  place  in  the  thoughts,  the  lives,  and  the 
affections  of  so  many  hundreds  of  their  colleagues  that 
their  loss  combined  with  many  of  the  dramatic  elements 
of  their  lives  to  convert  their  memory  into  a  sort  of 
legend,  so  that  members  who  had  known  them  well  grew 
at  last  to  be  envied  by  later  comers. 


30     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Nevertheless,  when  the  House  sheds  a  veteran  leader 
the  spirit  of  politics  is  often  changed  for  the  better, 
since  younger  members,  unprejudiced  by  the  past 
and  eager  for  a  new  order  of  things,  come  to  the  front. 
The  transition  is  gradual,  but  it  usually  makes  for 
progress.  There  is  little  to  be  feared,  however,  from 
longevity  in  the  House,  since  each  biennial  election  is 
the  curfew  of  one  fourth  of  its  members.  Thus  the 
House,  like  the  heathen  goddess,  devours  its  own  chil- 
dren. But  the  rapidity  with  which  the  process  goes  on 
is  a  bit  startling.  Of  the  three  hundred  and  ninety-one 
members  who  appeared  in  March,  1911,  at  the  first 
session  of  the  Sixty-second  Congress,  only  four  be- 
longed to  the  House  in  1891. 1  This  represents  the  havoc 
usually  made  every  twenty  years  by  death,  defeat,  and 
other  circumstances.  The  average  length  of  a  mem- 
ber's service  is  less  than  six  years. 

A  new  House  is  usually  organized  on  the  first  Monday 
in  December  of  each  odd  year,  although  the  ceremony 
may  occur  earlier  if  the  President  calls  a  special  session. 
But  whatever  the  day,  the  clerk  of  the  preceding  House 
raps  for  order  promptly  at  twelve  o'clock  meridian,  and 
while  the  chaplain  prays  the  members,  standing  in  their 
places,  give  reverent  attention  with  bowed  heads.  Then 
the  clerk  calls  the  roll  of  members  elect.  In  earlier  days 
this  sometimes  meant  parliamentary  confusion,  and  the 
conditions  that  characterized  the  New  Jersey  wrangle 
in  1839  may  again  cause  trouble.  During  the  past 
half -century,  however,  decisive  results  at  the  polls  and 

1  Joseph  G.  Cannon,  Illinois;  Sereno  E.  Payne,  New  York;  Henry 
H.  Bingham,  Pennsylvania;  John  Dalzell,  Pennsylvania. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE         31 

early  caucus  action  have  turned  the  call  into  a  mere 
formality  and  the  election  of  a  Speaker  into  a  public 
ceremony.  If  the  roll-call  discloses  a  quorum,1  candi- 
dates for  Speaker  are  immediately  placed  in  nomina- 
tion. In  presenting  them  the  chairmen  of  the  respective 
party  caucuses  rise  in  their  places,  and,  without  re- 
marks, announce  the  names  selected.  This  done,  the 
clerk  appoints  tellers,  representing  each  party,  and  pro- 
ceeds a  second  time  to  call  the  roll,  arranged  not  by 
States  as  before,  but  alphabetically.2  Each  member, 
without  rising,  declares  his  choice  viva  voce.  Prior  to 
1839  the  House  used  the  ballot,  and  subsequent  efforts 
to  restore  it  occasionally  found  a  few  supporters.  But 
after  the  long,  fierce  contest  of  1849  members  resented 
the  suggestion,  holding  that  open  voting  prevented 
secret  bolting.  In  1855  a  motion  to  restore  it  was  de- 
feated by  two  hundred  and  fourteen  to  seven. 

The  number  of  votes  required  to  elect  a  Speaker  de- 
pends upon  the  will  of  the  House.  For  many  years  the 
rule,  accepted  without  objection,  fixed  a  majority  of 
all  the  members  as  the  minimum.  But  in  1809,  when 
Speaker  Varnum  received  a  less  number,  the  House, 
heedless  of  John  Randolph's  declaration  that "  a  Speaker 
should  be  elected  more  majorum,"  3  held  a  plurality 
sufficient,  a  quorum  having  voted.4  This  precedent, 

1  In  the  earlier  years  a  quorum  rarely  responded  on  the  opening 
day.    At  the  first  session  of  the  First  Congress,  called  to  meet  on 
March  4,  1789,  a  majority  of  the  House  did  not  appear  until  April  1. 
But  railroads  long  ago  eliminated  excuse  for  such  delays. 

2  If  two  members  have  the  same  surname,  the  State  of  each  is 
added.    If  two  from  the  same  State  have  like  surnames,  the  first 
names  are  called. 

8  llth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  pp.  54-56.  4  Ibid. 


32     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

based  upon  party  expediency,  found  no  favor  with  suc- 
ceeding Houses  until  a  desire  to  end  the  protracted 
struggle  of  1849  encouraged  the  adoption  of  a  special 
rule  providing  that  if  no  choice  be  made  in  the  next  three 
ballots  a  plurality  should  elect.  It  was  argued  that  a 
plurality  would  be  equivalent  to  a  majority  since  it 
required  a  majority  to  give  effect  to  a  plurality,  but 
after  the  selection  of  Howell  Cobb  under  the  resolution 
anxiety  to  preserve  the  Randolph  rule  led  to  the  con- 
firmation of  his  title  by  a  majority  vote.1  In  the  famous 
contest  between  Banks  and  Aiken  in  1855,  a  similar 
special  rule  was  adopted,  and  when  the  third  ballot 
disclosed  a  plurality  for  Banks,  a  teller,  in  announcing 
the  result,  said:  "According  to  the  resolution  adopted 
this  day  Nathaniel  P.  Banks  is  declared  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  for  the  Thirty-fourth  Con- 
gress." Immediately  a  member  from  Kentucky  pro- 
tested that,  the  precedent  of  1849  not  having  been  fol- 
lowed, Banks  had  not  been  chosen  Speaker.  Upon  this 
the  pent-up  emotion  of  many  weeks  broke  forth  in  wild 
tumult,  but  when  order  was  partially  restored,  Aiken, 
with  a  chivalry  that  did  him  honor,  rebuked  the  cavil- 
lers, declaring  Banks  fairly  and  legally  chosen.  Never- 
theless, it  was  deemed  expedient  to  confirm  his  title 
by  a  majority  vote.2  An  exception  to  this  rule  has 
occurred  only  once.  In  the  Forty-sixth  Congress,  out 
of  a  total  membership  of  293,  Samuel  J.  Randall  re- 
ceived 144  votes,  a  plurality  of  21  over  James  A.  Gar- 
field,  but  3  less  than  a  majority.  After  the  announce- 

1  31st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  pp.  157-63. 

2  34th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  343. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE         33 

ment  of  the  choice  of  Randall,  a  member,  swelling  with 
indignation,  asked  if  it  did  not  require  a  majority  of  all 
to  elect,  to  which  the  instructed  and  obedient  clerk 
promptly  replied :  "  It  requires  a  majority  of  those  voting 
to  elect  a  Speaker  as  it  does  to  pass  a  bill,  a  quorum 
voting."  1  A  similar  ruling,  had  it  been  permitted  in 
1839,  1849,  1855,  and  1860,  would  have  made  other 
men  Speaker  than  those  finally  chosen.  In  the  presence 
of  such  a  continued  and  chivalric  observance  of  the 
Randolph  rule,  its  violation  in  1879  seemed  unpatriotic. 
Nor  would  the  House  have  acquiesced  had  the  votes 
in  opposition  aggregated  a  majority.  Nevertheless,  it 
served  the  Pennsylvanian's  purpose! 

After  announcing  the  election  of  a  Speaker,  the  clerk 
appoints  a  committee  to  conduct  the  honored  one  to  the 
chair.  In  early  Congresses  it  consisted  of  one  member 
distinguished  for  long  or  other  service;  but  in  1849, 
after  the  historic  contest  between  Cobb  and  Winthrop, 
during  which  the  rival  candidates  had  observed  toward 
each  other  conspicuous  courtesy,  the  House  increased 
the  committee  to  three,  the  appointment  of  Winthrop 
as  its  chairman  being  received  with  wild  applause. 
"Mr.  Winthrop,"  says  the  Globe,  "approached  Mr. 
Cobb  with  much  good  humor,  both  shaking  hands  cor- 
dially." 2  This  gracious  custom  became  hallowed  when 
Aiken,  after  the  savagely  partisan  contest  of  1855, 
smilingly  offered  his  arm  to  Banks,  and  presented  him 
to  the  House  as  the  "gentlest  of  gentlemen."  3  In  later 

1  46th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  5. 

2  31st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  20. 

8  The  vote  stood:  Banks,  103;  Aiken,  100. 


34     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

years  the  absence  of  hotly  contested  elections  may 
have  robbed  this  pretty  ceremony  of  much  of  its  senti- 
ment, but  men  yet  living  can  recall  Kerr  conducting 
Blaine  to  the  chair,  and  Blaine  conducting  Kerr;  Gar- 
field  arm  in  arm  with  Randall,  and  Randall  arm  in  arm 
with  Keifer;  Reed  supporting  Carlisle,  and  Carlisle 
supporting  Reed;  Reed  escorting  Crisp,  and  Crisp  es- 
corting Reed.  Such  are  the  vicissitudes  of  politics. 
After  Crisp's  death  and  Reed's  resignation,  James  D. 
Richardson,  of  Tennessee,  accompanied  Henderson, 
John  Sharp  Williams  walked  by  the  side  of  Cannon, 
and  eight  years  later  James  R.  Mann,  of  Illinois,  es- 
corted Champ  Clark. 

Thus  escorted,  the  Speaker  elect  mounts  at  once  to 
the  dais.  In  the  English  Parliament  the  ceremony  is  less 
abrupt.  Standing  with  one  foot  on  the  topmost  step,  the 
Speaker  elect  of  the  Commons  bows  three  times  to  the 
chair,  and,  looking  back,  recites  a  brief  formula  of  thanks. 
Then,  taking  the  last  step,  he  seats  himself  upon  the 
people's  throne,  while  the  sergeant-at-arms  lifts  the 
mace  to  the  table  in  token  that  the  House  is  in  session. 
The  Speaker  elect  of  the  American  House  escapes  less 
easily.  He  must  listen  to  the  words  of  an  introduction, 
and  recite  or  read  an  original  address.  The  enthusiastic 
audience,  eager  to  end  the  monotony  of  roll-calls,  ex- 
pects a  rousing  speech,  but  as  words  of  self-deprecia- 
tion, of  commonplace  appeal,  and  hackneyed  platitudes 
multiply,  it  begins  to  wonder  how  a  brilliant  talker, 
effective  in  attack  and  ready  in  repartee,  can  be  so  tame. 
The  Record  presents  no  exception  to  the  rule.  Clay 
declared  himself  so  sensible  of  imperfections  "that  re- 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE         35 

liance  upon  your  generous  support  alone  encourages  me 
to  attempt  a  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  Chair. "  l 
Even  Elaine,  bold  and  dominating  as  Clay,  expressed 
great  diffidence.2  After  laboriously  trying  to  work  out 
something  new,  Reed  complained  that  "the  language  of 
thanks  has  long  ago  been  exhausted."  3  One  wonders 
if  the  English  stereotyped  formula  is  not  better.  Yet 
the  remarks  of  Speakers  elect  are  rarely  tedious.  As 
printed  in  the  official  proceedings  Clay's  six  speeches 
average  only  twenty-five  lines,  and  Stevenson's  and 
Cannon's,  each  four  times  elected,  average  seventy 
and  twenty-seven  lines  respectively.  Of  the  three-term 
Speakers,  Macon's  average  six  lines,  Colfax's  forty, 
Elaine's  thirty,  Randall's  twenty,  Carlisle's  seventy,  and 
Reed's  seventeen.  Other  Speakers  are  not  more  prolix. 
Indeed,  Crisp's  two  speeches  average  only  six  lines. 

When  taking  the  oath  the  Speaker  formerly  de- 
scended to  the  floor.  It  placed  him  once  more  on  a  level 
with  his  associates,  and  magnified  the  fact  that  much 
of  his  power  springs  from  his  membership;  but  for  many 
years  he  has  remained  in  his  desk.  Importance  also  at- 
taches to  the  official  administering  the  oath.  Very  early 
in  its  history  the  House  adopted  the  English  custom  of 
designating  for  this  duty  the  member  of  longest  contin- 
uous service,  known  as  the  "Father  of  the  House."  4 
For  four  Congresses  John  Quincy  Adams  bore  this  title; 
Lewis  Williams,  of  North  Carolina,  held  it  for  six  terms; 
and  William  D.  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania,  sustained  it 

1  12th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  2. 

2  41st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  3. 
8  55th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4. 

4  For  list  of  "fathers,"  see  Appendix  D. 


36     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

with  great  credit  for  sixteen  years  out  of  a  service  of 
fifteen  terms.  With  questionable  taste  Speakers  Ran- 
dall and  Crisp  interrupted  the  custom  by  designating 
William  S.  Holman,  of  Indiana,  to  officiate.  Holman 
had  served  as  many  terms  as  the  then  "father,"  but  not 
consecutively.1  Had  later  speakers  followed  this  prece- 
dent, Joseph  G.  Cannon  must  have  officiated  after  the 
Fifty-fif th  Congress,  since  he  represented  longer  service 
than  Bingham.  Indeed,  in  a  parliamentary  sense  Can- 
non may  be  said  to  have  been  born  before  his  father.2 
Having  taken  the  oath  of  office  the  Speaker  elect 
becomes  the  Speaker,  and  is  always  and  everywhere 
addressed  as  "Mr.  Speaker."  Yet  never  in  his  dress 
and  rarely  in  his  manner  is  there  visible  change.  It  is 
otherwise  with  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
On  his  reappearance  after  taking  the  oath  he  is  attired 
in  Court  dress,  with  knee-breeches,  silver-buckled  shoes, 
and  a  bob-wig.  After  receiving  "His  Majesty's  Royal 
allowance  and  confirmation  of  the  choice  made  by  his 
faithful  Commons,"  a  ceremony  performed  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  he  drops  the  "bob,"  puts  on  a  full- 
bottomed  wig,  dons  a  flowing  robe,  and  makes  his  way 
back  to  the  chamber  of  the  House,  accompanied  by  the 
chaplain  in  full  canonicals  and  the  sergeant-at-arms 
bearing  the  mace.  The  cry,  "Mr.  Speaker,"  passed 
along  from  policeman  to  messenger,  announces  his  prog- 
ress. A  similar  ceremony  is  daily  observed  whenever 

1  Holman  served  from  the  36th  to  and  including  the  55th  Congress, 
except  the  39th,  45th,  46th,  and  54th. 

2  Cannon  who  is  still  in  the  House,  served  continuously  from  the 
43d  to  and  including  the  62d  Congress,  except  the  52d,  being  the 
longest  service  in  the  history  of  the  House. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE         37 

he  enters  the  House.  The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, unaccompanied  and  unannounced,  enters 
the  great  chamber  promptly  at  twelve  o'clock,  quickly 
ascends  to  the  desk,  gives  one  sharp  rap  with  the  gavel, 
proclaims  "the  House  will  be  in  order,"  and  in  a  softer, 
lower  tone  asks  the  chaplain,  already  waiting  at  the 
clerk's  desk,  to  offer  prayer.  The  Englishman  believes 
that  business  would  proceed  much  less  smoothly  with- 
out the  wig,  the  robe,  and  the  ceremony,  while  the 
American  rejoices  in  the  Speaker's  ordinary  dress  and 
the  absence  of  the  spectacular. 

The  first  duty  of  the  Speaker  is  to  administer  the  oath 
to  members  elect,  who,  as  their  names  are  called  by 
States,  take  position  in  front  of  the  desk.  If  one  member 
objects  to  another  being  sworn,  the  Chair  may  direct 
him  to  stand  aside  until  the  House  decides.  In  such 
instances  members  are  usually  sworn  at  once  and  their 
cases  subsequently  referred  to  a  committee  for  exami- 
nation. Absent  members  qualify  whenever  they  ap- 
pear. Indeed,  during  their  absence  the  oath  may  be 
administered  to  them  by  another  than  the  Speaker.1 

The  election  of  clerk,  sergeant-at-arms,  doorkeeper, 
postmaster,  and  chaplain  follows  the  qualification  of 
members.  To  save  time  a  resolution  containing  the 
five  names  selected  by  the  majority  caucus  is  adopted. 
After  their  election  the  Speaker  administers  the  oath. 
Then  the  sergeant-at-arms,  without  ceremony  and  of- 
ten without  being  observed  by  the  casual  visitor,  lifts 
the  historic  mace,  with  its  silver  globe  and  massive 
eagle  flashing  in  the  light,  to  its  place  on  the  marble 
1  49th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  1156-58. 


38     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

pedestal  at  the  right  of  the  Chair.  This  symbol  of  the 
power  of  the  House  as  represented  by  the  Speaker,  when 
thus  located,  indicates  that  the  House  is  in  session  and 
ready  for  business.1 

But  on  this  opening  day  there  is  little  business  to 
transact.  Two  resolutions  are  adopted,  one  instructing 
the  clerk  to  notify  the  President  and  the  Senate  that  the 
House  is  ready  to  proceed  to  business;  the  other  direct- 
ing the  Speaker  to  appoint  a  committee  to  join  one  from 
the  Senate  to  inform  the  President  that  Congress  is  pre- 
pared to  receive  any  communication  he  may  be  pleased 
to  make.  The  hour  for  daily  meeting  is  also  fixed,  usually 
at  twelve  o'clock  meridian. 

The  adoption  of  the  rules  of  the  last  House,  like  the 
preceding  business,  is  wholly  perfunctory.  Whatever 
changes  the  majority  desire  are  prepared  in  private,  ap- 
proved in  caucus,  and  presented  to  the  House  under  a 
demand  for  the  previous  question.  This  limits  debate  to 
twenty  minutes  on  a  side,  and  three  or  four  old  mem- 
bers, whose  speeches  are  seldom  new  and  never  con- 
vincing, exhaust  the  time.  For  many  years  the  real 
interest  of  the  opening  day  centered  in  the  remarks  of 
William  P.  Hepburn,  of  Iowa,  a  caustic  and  dangerous 
adversary  in  debate,  who,  while  exploiting  his  objections 
to  the  rules,  delighted  the  House  with  his  ready  retort 
and  sarcasm.  Nevertheless,  the  code  is  usually  adopted 
without  amendment.2 

1  The  mace  represents  the  Roman  fasces,  the  rods,  tipped  with 
silver  spearheads,  being  bound  transversely  with  a  silver  band,  from 
the  center  of  which  a  silver  stem  supports  a  globe  of  silver,  on  which 
perches  a  massive  silver  eagle.  The  height  is  about  three  feet. 

1  See  chap,  ix,  p.  170. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  HOUSE        39 

The  drawing  of  seats  formerly  completed  the  busi- 
ness of  the  day.  The  old  chamber,  now  Statuary  Hall, 
afforded  fairly  good  accommodations  until  the  appor- 
tionment under  the  Sixth  Census  crowded  two  hundred 
and  forty  members  into  its  limited  area.  After  that  the 
desirable  seats  fell  to  those  who  arrived  first.  This 
raised  the  cry  that  members  residing  near  Washington 
benefited  at  the  expense  of  those  living  at  a  distance, 
and  several  unsuccessful  attempts  to  put  all  on  an 
equality  exaggerated  the  unfairness  of  the  free-seat  sys- 
tem as  much  as  they  exploited  the  benefits  of  a  lottery 
scheme.  Finally  the  issue  became  sufficiently  acute  to 
attract  the  attention  of  Howell  Cobb,  of  Georgia,  whose 
ambition  to  be  Speaker  found  support  in  his  skill  as  a 
parliamentarian,  and  with  arguments  that  told  most 
readily  on  the  House  he  engineered  the  adoption  of  a 
plan,  which,  in  spite  of  its  nerve-racking  and  temper- 
ruifling  results,  seemed  ever  after  to  defy  improvement.1 
Its  operation  required  a  box  of  marbles,  each  bearing  a 
number  corresponding  to  the  number  of  a  member's 
name  on  a**list  alphabetically  arranged.  When  all  seats 
were  vacated,  except  those  specially  exempted  for 
former  Speakers  and  others  of  conspicuous  or  long  ser- 
vice, a  blindfolded  page  withdrew  a  marble,  the  clerk 
announced  its  number,  and  the  member  hurried  to  the 
most  desirable  seat  unoccupied.  This  was  fair.  But 
as  the  coveted  places  rapidly  filled,  the  suspense  be- 
came more  and  more  intolerable  until  the  unlucky 
members  gladly  dropped  into  any  vacant  chair,  de- 
voutly thankful  if  they  escaped  a  far-off  corner,  known 
1  29th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  4. 


40     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

as  "Cherokee  Strip,"  where  seeing  was  difficult  and 
hearing  impossible.  Nevertheless,  the  lottery  continued 
as  the  fairest  plan  that  could  be  devised  until  the  re- 
moval of  desks  and  the  substitution  of  benches  in  1913 
did  away  with  the  necessity  for  permanent  seats.  A 
member  entering  the  chamber  may  now  locate  in  any 
unoccupied  chair.  Although  this  was  practically  so 
under  the  old  arrangement,  one  who  took  the  seat  of 
another  usually  vacated  it  on  the  appearance  of  its 
rightful  occupant  —  not  from  the  feeling  of  being  a 
trespasser,  but  because  the  desk  contained  books  and 
papers  which  the  latter  might  wish  to  consult.  Until 
the  erection  in  1908  of  a  building  providing  rooms  for 
others  than  chairmen  of  committees,  a  member's  desk 
was  his  office. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE    SPEAKER 

THE  Speaker  is  the  organ  of  the  House.  As  its  execu- 
tive head  he  receives  its  invitations,  represents  it  at 
public  functions,  appoints  and  removes  official  reporters, 
names  visitors  and  trustees  of  public  institutions, 
issues  warrants,  executes  orders,  authenticates  pro- 
ceedings, approves  bonds,  certifies  salary  accounts  of 
members,  controls  committee  rooms,  corridors,  galleries, 
and  the  House  grounds,  regulates  admission  to  the 
floor  and  to  the  press  gallery,  signs  all  bills  that  pass,  and 
notifies  the  proper  state  official  whenever  a  vacancy  in 
the  House  occurs. 

As  its  presiding  officer  he  calls  the  assembly  to  order, 
recognizes  members,  ascertains  the  presence  of  a  quorum, 
presents  business  as  indicated  by  the  rules,  preserves 
order,  administers  censure  by  direction  of  the  House, 
answers  parliamentary  inquiries,  decides  questions  of 
order,  and,  in  general,  carries  out  the  will  of  the  House. 
He  selects  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  appoints  a  Speaker  pro  tempore  for  a  day,  or, 
with  the  approval  of  the  House,  for  a  term  not  to  ex- 
ceed ten  days,  and  refers  or  directs  the  reference  of 
all  bills  to  their  respective  committees.  Until  the 
Sixty-second  Congress  (1911)  he  appointed  all  commit- 
tees unless  otherwise  ordered,  and  for  over  hah*  a  cen- 
tury (1857-1911)  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Rules.  By  the  Act  of  1816  his  salary  was  fixed  at  $8 


42     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

per  day.    It  became  $6000  per  year  in  1856,  $8000  in 
1866,  and  $12,000  in  1906. 

By  custom  the  Speaker  ranks  next  to  the  President 
and  Vice-President.  Until  1887  the  law  designated  him 
to  succeed  to  the  Presidency  in  the  event  of  the  death 
or  incapacity  of  the  President  and  Vice-President.  Na- 
thaniel Macon  regarded  the  Speaker  "as  the  elect  of 
the  elect  of  all  the  people,"  and  disregarding  his  assign- 
ment at  a  public  ceremony,  took  his  place  by  the  side 
of  the  President  and  Vice-President.1  At  a  state  dinner 
given  by  the  Chief  Executive  to  members  of  Congress, 
the  Vice-President  sits  at  the  right  and  the  Speaker  at 
the  left  of  the  President.  If  given  to  the  Supreme  Court, 
the  Chief  Justice,  as  the  guest  of  honor,  sits  at  the 
President's  right,  the  Vice-President  at  his  left,  and  the 
Speaker  at  the  right  of  the  Chief  Justice.  On  one 
occasion  Speaker  Cannon  declined  to  attend  such  a 
function  unless  so  seated.  "  Be  as  modest  as  you  please," 
said  Thomas  H.  Ben  ton  to  Speaker  Winthrop,  who  hesi- 
tated a  moment  before  taking  his  seat  at  a  dinner  given 
by  the  City  of  Washington  to  Congress,  "but  don't 
compromise  the  House  of  Representatives."  2  Former 
President  Adams  thought  the  Speaker  should  call  upon 
no  one  save  the  President  and  Vice-President.  Several 
reasons  are  presented  for  this  precedent.  Speaker 
Winthrop  based  it  upon  his  duty,  coequal  with  that  of 
the  President  and  Vice-President,  to  sign  all  bills.  John 
Quincy  Adams  attributed  it  to  the  fact  that  he  is  "the 
representative  of  the  people's  representatives."  3  Until 

1  Thomas  H.  Benton,  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  i,  p.  118. 

*  M.  P.  Follett,  The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  p.  297. 

8  Ibid. 


THE  SPEAKER  43 

divested  of  authority  to  appoint  committees  and  to 
head  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Thomas  B.  Reed  thought 
the  office  "had  but  one  superior  and  no  peer,"  and 
people  generally  associated  this  prestige  with  its  "enor- 
mous power,"  which  was  surpassed  only  by  that  of  the 
President. 

The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons  is  not  its  pro- 
totype. The  former  declares  and  interprets  the  law  in 
a  strictly  judicial  spirit,  and  his  rulings  are  final. 
Though  he  cannot  make  or  alter  the  law  of  the  House, 
he  may,  when  precedents  and  orders  are  insufficient, 
adopt  such  a  course  as  is  most  consistent  with  the  usages 
and  traditions  of  the  House  and  the  rights  and  interests 
of  its  members.  When  elected  Speaker  he  renounces 
party,  and  merges  the  lesser  office  of  member  into  the 
greater  one  of  Speaker.  He  is  not  permitted  to  advise 
either  party  and  must  not  deliver  political  addresses 
even  to  his  own  constituents.  He  cannot  vote  except 
in  case  of  a  tie,  a  privilege,  which,  if  exercised,  is  so 
used  that,  if  possible,  it  may  not  involve  final  action. 
Indeed,  not  to  maintain  strict  political  neutrality 
without  the  House  as  well  as  within  it  is  deemed  a 
sufficient  breach  of  the  proprieties  to  deny  him  a  reelec- 
tion. When  his  impartiality  is  established,  however, 
his  tenure  of  office  is  not  affected  by  a  change  of  min- 
istry, and,  so  long  as  he  desires  to  continue  in  office, 
the  practice  of  reelecting  him,  whatever  party  may 
be  in  power,  has  been  departed  from  but  once  in  a 
century. 

The  American  Speaker,  on  the  other  hand,  was  un- 
til recently  a  political  leader.  As  a  presiding  officer  he 


44     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

interpreted  the  rules  and  decided  questions  of  order, 
subject  to  appeal,  while  as  head  of  his  party  in  the  House 
he  controlled  political  legislation  along  lines  representing 
its  established  policies.  In  other  words,  the  office  com- 
bined imperfectly  the  duties  of  a  British  Speaker,  who 
is  the  parliamentary  spokesman  of  the  House  in  its 
collective  capacity,  and  the  legislative  functions  of  a 
British  Prime  Minister,  who  represents  a  majority  of 
the  Commons  and  endeavors  to  control  legislation  by 
all  the  adventitious  aids  known  to  party  machinery. 
This  combination  put  the  American  Speaker  at  a  great 
disadvantage.  To  shape  legislation  in  the  interest  of  a 
party  and  to  act  impartially  as  a  presiding  officer  is  a 
difficult  role,  and  even  when  infinite  tact  and  rare  skill 
are  exercised,  a  lurking  suspicion  exists  that  political 
motives  influence  and  govern  him.  Nevertheless,  it  has 
always  been  held  that  a  Speaker  while  presiding  is  in 
nowise  emancipated  from  the  obligation  to  act  impar- 
tially, and  fairness  at  such  times  has  largely  determined 
his  character  as  an  official  worthy  of  the  great  trust  im- 
posed in  him.  It  may  be  added  that  in  matters  purely 
political  an  earnest  effort  to  observe  the  British  ideal 
has  at  times  marked  the  conduct  of  several  Speakers, 
notably  of  Samuel  J.  Randall,  who,  by  firm  fairness 
during  the  passage  and  enforcement  of  the  Electoral 
Commission  Act  in  1877,  rose  to  exalted  heights. 

In  choosing  a  Speaker  the  House,  unless  prevented  by 
a  party  caucus  or  outside  interference,  usually  picks  its 
most  masterful  member.  The  selection  of  John  White, 
John  W.  Jones,  and  John  W.  Davis,  called  "the  three 
Johns"  and  known  as  "the  three  tools,"  represents  the 


THE  SPEAKER  45 

blighting  control  of  party  bosses,  while  the  choice  of 
Stevenson  and  Polk  was  due  wholly  to  the  influence 
of  President  Jackson.  The  chief  factor  in  the  election  of 
Hunter  and  Pennington  was  availability,  neither  being 
the  first  choice  of  his  party.  Galusha  A.  Grow  became 
Speaker,  says  Elaine,"  because  of  his  activity  in  the  anti- 
slavery  struggles."  1  After  knocking  down  Lawrence 
M.  Keitt,  of  South  Carolina,  in  a  fisticuff  encounter  on 
the  floor  of  the  House,  Grow  became  a  hero,2  and  with- 
out a  caucus  or  party  nomination  he  polled  a  plurality 
of  votes  on  the  first  roll-call.  Subsequent  changes  before 
the  announcement  of  the  result  gave  him  a  majority 
over  all.  As  a  rule  long  service,  conspicuous  ability,  and 
aptitude  for  the  duties  of  the  chair  have  governed  in 
the  selection  of  Speakers,  bringing  to  the  high  office  such 
members  as  Taylor,  Clay,  Bell,  Winthrop,  Cobb,  Banks, 
Colfax,  Blaine,  Kerr,  Randall,  Carlisle,  Reed,  and  Can- 
non. 

The  selection  of  a  Speaker  pro  tempore  who  will  sus- 
tain the  elevated  character  of  the  high  office  becomes 
important.  If  the  Speaker  leaves  the  chair  temporarily, 
he  may  hand  the  gavel  to  any  member  accessible  at  the 
moment.  But  in  selecting  a  colleague  to  preside  in  his 
absence,  or  when  custom  denies  him  the  privilege,  the 
Speaker  aims  to  appoint  an  able  parliamentarian,  pos- 
sessing the  supreme  confidence  and  respect  of  the  House. 
Although  the  excellent  practice  long  ago  became  ob- 
solete of  choosing  eminent  members  like  John  Quincy 

1  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i,  p.  324. 

2  John  T.  Morse,  Jr.,  Life  of  Lincoln,  vol.  I,  p.  297.  See,  also,  chap, 
vii,  p.  125. 


46     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Adams  and  Robert  C.  Winthrop  regardless  of  their  po- 
litical affiliations,  the  list  of  appointees  includes  many 
names  familiar  to  the  country.  A  speaker  pro  tempore, 
if  his  appointment  is  approved  by  the  House,  may  au- 
thenticate papers,1  sign  bills,  and  appoint  committees.2 
His  most  important  duty,  however,  is  to  preside  during 
the  consideration  of  matters  personal  to  the  Speaker,  such 
as  censure,  charges  of  misconduct,  a  contested  seat,  or 
*-<%  resolution  of  thanks.  At  such  times  the  House  is  likely 
to  be  testy.  Excitement  and  often  resentment  are  in 
evidence,  and  while  free  scope  must  be  given  to  investi- 
gation and  declamation,  exhibitions  of  malice  should 
be  tactfully  restrained.  As  a  rule  Speakers  court  the 
fullest  inquiry  and  quickly  step  aside  while  the  House 
probes  for  the  truth.  It  showed  the  nobility  of  Howell 
Cobb's  character,  when  charged  with  mutilating  the 
House  Journal,  that  he  called  his  distinguished  oppo- 
nent, Robert  C.  Winthrop,  to  the  chair.3  In  like  manner, 
Speaker  Randall,  during  an  investigation  in  1879  which 
involved  his  personal  honesty,  turned  the  gavel  over  to 
John  G.  Carlisle,  his  great  rival.4  When  Carlisle  became 
Speaker  in  the  Fiftieth  Congress,  he  faced  a  painful 
contest  for  his  seat.  A  feeling  existed  that  the  methods 
of  his  friends  would  scarcely  bear  exposure  to  the  gaze 
of  a  fastidious  public,  and  to  escape  the  charge  of  com- 
plicity he  absented  himself  from  the  Capitol  on  a  plea 
of  illness  during  the  consideration  and  settlement  of  the 
case,  leaving  to  the  House  the  selection  of  a  Speaker 

1  48th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  1743. 

2  28th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  13. 

»  31st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  1713. 

4  45th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Journal,  pp.  541,  671-74. 


THE  SPEAKER  47 

pro  tempore.1   Speaker   Coif  ax,  after  relinquishing  the 
chair  to  move  the  expulsion  of  Alexander  Long,  of  Ohio, 
adopted  a  similar  course.   His  action  had  made  an  un- 
pleasant  impression  upon  the  House.    The  minority 
thought  it  inexcusably  rash  until  his  refusal  to  preside 
whenever  the  matter  subsequently  came  up  showed  that 
no  personal  feeling  or  interest  promoted  his  patriotic 
action.  Speaker  Elaine  failed  to  exhibit  such  tact  during 
the  investigation  of  the  Credit  Mobilier  scandal.    Of 
those  implicated  by  public  rumor  Elaine's  name  stood 
at  the  top  of  the  list.    He  had,  in  fact,  absolutely  re- 
fused to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  disreputable 
transaction,   and  when   Congress   met  in  December, 
1872,  he  promptly  introduced  a  resolution  providing 
for  the  investigation  of  the  affairs  of  the  Union  Pacific 
Railroad.  The  special  committee's  report  came  in  March, 
and,  although  it  acquitted  the  Speaker  of  any  wrong- 
doing, his  colleagues  regarded  his  retention  of  the  chair 
during  its  consideration  as  indelicate.   The  press  like- 
wise censured  him.2 

The  early  custom  of  nominating  and  electing  a  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  proved  so  unsatisfac- 
tory that  the  House,  in  the  Third  Congress,  authorized 
the  Speaker  to  appoint.  In  selecting  members  for  this 
very  responsible  position,  he  aims  to  pick  skilled  par- 
liamentarians whose  views  accord  with  his  own,  unless 
he  wishes  to  disarm  an  active  opponent  by  taking  him 
from  the  floor.  "The  Speaker  called  me  to  the  chair," 

1  See  chap,  xiv,  p.  328;  50th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  645-61. 
1  New  York  World,  March  5,  1873;  42d  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record, 
pp.  1867-87. 


48     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

wrote  John  Quincy  Adams,  "so  that  I  could  not  enter 
into  the  debate."  This  proved  a  handicap  to  the  dis- 
tinguished fighter,  since  "Boon,  of  Indiana,  whose  fac- 
ulty of  speech  is  a  yelp,  charged  me  with  having  slighted 
the  manufacturing  interests  of  the  country  when  I  was 
in  power,  and  Hardin,  of  Kentucky,  let  out  some  of  his 
venom  upon  New  England."  1  In  more  recent  years 
other  members  have  had  reason  to  complain.  Elaine 
enjoyed  calling  Samuel  S.  Cox  to  the  chair,  and  in 
moments  of  f acetiousness  other  Speakers  smoothed  the 
way  by  handing  the  gavel  to  flippant  talkers.  But  Cox 
was  never  muzzled.  Whether  in  the  chair  or  out  of  it, 
his  activities  and  banter  did  not  cease.  Reed  called  him 
"a  whole  skirmish  line."  In  one  of  his  funny  moments 
he  declared  that  the  Republicans  of  Maine,  in  spite 
of  its  prohibitory  law,  drank  "a  great  deal  of  whiskey 
clandestinely."  To  which  Reed  quickly  replied:  "When 
my  friend  from  New  York  takes  it,  it  does  not  remain 
clandestine  very  long." 

Whenever  the  House  is  engaged  in  business  other 
than  roll-calls  and  regular  debate,  the  Speaker  is  alert 
and  usually  on  his  feet,  answering  inquiries,  putting 
motions,  and  announcing  results.  If  deciding  points  of 
order,  he  may  stand  or  sit  at  his  pleasure.  At  such 
times  controversy  with  the  Chair  is  never  allowed.  In 
enforcing  this  rule  against  Roger  Q.  Mills,  of  Texas, 
Speaker  Reed,  with  sharp  emphasis,  declined  to  hear 
him.2  Even  if  the  Chair  refuses  an  appeal,  a  member 
must  keep  silent.  "The  Chair  desires  to  state,"  said 

1  Diary,  vol.  ix,  pp.  322,  324. 

2  51st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  3976. 


THE  SPEAKER  49 

Speaker  Crisp,  "that  no  member  has  a  right,  after  the 
Chair  has  decided  a  point  of  order,  to  ask  upon  what 
ground  he  bases  his  decision."  l  During  Reed's  historic 
contest  to  compel  Speaker  Crisp  to  count  a  quorum,  the 
latter  declined  to  entertain  an  appeal. 

"On  what  ground?"  asked  Reed. 

SPEAKER:  "The  Chair  declines  to  make  any  further 
statement." 

REED:  "I  think  I  can  satisfy  the  Chair  — " 

SPEAKER:  "The  Chair  declines  to  hear  the  gentleman 
further." 

REED:  "The  Chair  will  permit  me  to  explain." 

SPEAKER:  "The  Chair  will  not." 

REED:  "The  Chair  will  permit  me  — " 

SPEAKER:  "The  gentleman  from  Maine  will  be  seated. 
The  sergeant-at-arms  will  see  that  the  gentleman  takes 
his  seat."  2 

And  the  former  Speaker  sat  down. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Chair,  under  the  rule,  is  re- 
strained from  addressing  the  House  either  from  the 
desk  or  floor  without  its  leave.  This  unwritten  rule, 
derived  from  the  English  Commons,  does  not  apply 
when  the  House  is  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Nor 
does  the  Chair  always  respect  it  at  other  times.  Speaker 
Clay  had  a  habit  of  cleverly  insinuating  his  opinions 
with  a  captivating  smile  and  a  graceful  bow,  and  the 
House  accepted  it  in  the  Clay  spirit.3  The  tradition, 
however,  has  been  approved  even  by  others  no  less  dis- 
tinguished. Speaker  Elaine,  having  left  the  chair  to 

1  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4044.  »  Ibid.,  p.  4060. 

8  12th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  1546. 


50     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

reply  to  a  vicious  attack  by  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of 
Massachusetts,  declared  that  "  the  Speaker  should,  with 
consistent  fidelity  to  his  own  party,  be  the  impartial 
administrator  of  the  rules  of  the  House,  and  a  constant 
participation  in  debate  would  take  from  him  that  ap- 
pearance of  impartiality  which  it  is  so  important  to 
maintain  in  the  rulings  of  the  Chair."  l  Having  thus 
apologized  for  the  impropriety  of  his  act,  he  proceeded 
to  punish  the  offending  member.  "He  came  down  like 
a  sledgehammer,"  his  wife  wrote  her  son.  "Butler  was 
really  cowed.  Mr.  Peters,  who  sat  in  front  of  him,  told 
Mr.  Hale  that  Butler  shook  so  that  he  (Peters)  could 
feel  it  where  he  sat.  Butler  has  brow-beaten  witnesses 
till  all  the  world  feared  him;  but  this  time  he  was  faced 
down  and  pounded  and  battered  and  very  much  sur- 
prised. I  was  surprised,  too,  to  see  how  little  he  had  to 
say  in  reply.  He  left  nearly  every  point  untouched, 
throwing  out  a  few  wild  shots.  But  yesterday  he  went 
up  to  the  desk  and  chatted  with  Mr.  Blaine  as  if  nothing 
had  happened.  The  whole  gallery  of  reporters  were 
frightfully  disgusted,  thinking,  no  doubt,  that  it  was  all 
talk  and  no  tussle."  2  To  this  presumption  Butler's 
subsequent  appointment  as  chairman  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee  certainly  contributed  some  supporting  evi- 
dence. Mrs.  Blaine's  description  of  the  Speaker's  effort, 
however,  was  not  over-colored.  Reed  once  said  of  him : 
"His  rush  was  very  hard  to  withstand;  he  never  paused 
to  defend  and  never  ceased  to  attack." 

Samuel  J.  Randall,  like  Blaine,  left  the  chair  several 

1  42d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  125. 

*  Gail  Hamilton,  Life  of  James  G.  Blaine,  p.  249. 


THE  SPEAKER  51 

times  to  address  the  House  without  its  permission,  but 
his  breach  of  the  proprieties  in  no  wise  involved  him- 
self. He  spoke  for  the  adoption  of  better  rules,  helpful 
to  legislation  and  for  the  common  good.1  Of  the  more 
recent  Speakers,  Crisp  and  Cannon  and  Clark  addressed 
the  House,  each  at  least  once,  without  its  leave.  Can- 
non's speech  simply  vindicated  him  from  charges  made 
by  a  delegate  from  Arizona  that  the  Speaker  had  unduly 
prejudiced  legislation  looking  to  the  admission  of  that 
Territory  as  a  State.2  But  the  Crisp  episode,  growing 
out  of  Reed's  effort  to  compel  the  counting  of  a  quorum, 
climaxed  a  highly  dramatic  scene.  It  was  a  daring 
maneuver.  No  sooner  did  Crisp  take  the  floor  than  the 
House  was  on  its  feet,  and  in  the  midst  of  an  excitement 
which  filled  the  air  with  motions,  appeals,  and  satirical 
sallies,  the  Speaker  endeavored  to  be  heard.  Very 
naturally  he  received  no  better  treatment  than  was 
accorded  other  members.  Laughter  greeted  his  words, 
witticisms  interrupted  his  sentences,  and  an  occasional 
sarcasm  from  Reed  intensified  the  confusion.  It  demon- 
strated the  wisdom  of  the  tradition  that  a  Speaker 
should  not  participate  in  debate,  and  incidentally  re- 
called the  fact  that  Reed,  in  his  famous  fight  to  count 
a  quorum,  never  sought  the  floor.3 

Speakers,  however,  are  privileged  to  debate  when- 
ever the  House  is  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Henry 
Clay  reveled  in  the  opportunity,  speaking  on  nine  meas- 
ures in  one  session.  He  often  arranged  that  important 

1  45th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2665;  46th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Re- 
cord, pp.  336,  1018;  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  1079. 

2  59th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  8528. 
1  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4056. 


52     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

matters  be  taken  up  in  Committee,1  and  once,  at  least, 
ventured  to  resent  a  motion  to  close  debate  before  he 
had  spoken.2  Other  Speakers  than  Clay  have  frequently 
asserted  their  privilege,  notably  Dayton  and  Randall, 
but  for  a  third  of  a  century,  if  Speaker  Cannon's  occa- 
sional remarks  be  excepted,  the  custom  has  been  obso- 
lete. Cannon  rarely  presumed  to  debate.  It  was  his 
custom  to  give  a  history  of  the  legislation  before  the 
Committee,  often  dropping  into  a  reminiscent  vein  to 
the  delight  of  his  hearers.  With  the  possible  exception 
of  John  Quincy  Adams,  no  one  ever  entertained  the 
House  better.  His  remarkable  memory  seemed  never 
to  forget  an  incident  in  the  forty  years  of  his  congres- 
sional life,  while  the  charm  of  his  manner  added  im- 
measurably to  his  offhand  yet  finished  speeches. 

In  exercising  the  privilege  of  voting  Speakers  have 
rarely  misused  it.  The  original  form  of  the  rule  did  not 
allow  the  Chair  to  vote  "unless  the  House  be  equally 
divided,  or  unless  his  vote,  if  given  to  the  minority, 
will  make  the  division  equal,  and  in  case  of  such  equal 
division  the  question  shall  be  lost."  3  Speaker  Macon, 
holding  this  language  to  mean  whenever  a  vote  would 
affect  the  decision  of  the  House,  voted  to  complete  a 
two-thirds  majority.4  Henry  Clay  went  a  step  further. 
He  held  that  the  Chair,  unlike  the  English  Speaker, 
who  renounces  the  privileges  of  membership,  retained 
the  right  as  a  member  to  vote  upon  any  pending  ques- 
tion, and  in  1817  he  not  only  voted  to  pass  the  Internal 

1  12th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  677.  !  Ibid.,  p.  596. 

8  1st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  103. 
4  8th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  775. 


THE  SPEAKER  53 

Improvement  Bill  over  the  President's  veto,  but,  wish- 
ing to  influence  others,  demanded  that  his  name  be 
called  first.1  Although  no  one  save  Clay  ever  had  the 
audacity  to  make  such  a  demand,  many  members  agreed 
with  his  view.  Nevertheless,  the  House  twice  refused 
to  amend  the  rule,2  and  in  1847  Speaker  Winthrop  held 
the  Clay  precedent  "not  within  the  intention  of  the 
rule."  3  It  is  likely  Clay  himself  doubted  its  propriety, 
for  in  1824,  after  the  House,  by  a  large  majority,  had 
voted  Lafayette  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  the 
Speaker  courteously  requested  the  privilege  of  having 
his  vote  recorded  among  the  "ayes."  However,  several 
Speakers,  without  provoking  objection  or  criticism,  fol- 
lowed the  Clay  precedent,  and  in  1850  the  House 
amended  the  rule  to  read:  "He  shall  not  be  required  to 
vote  except  when  his  vote  will  be  decisive."  4  This 
gave  him  the  right  to  vote  at  any  time,  a  privilege 
rarely  exercised  except  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
Speakers  are  not  more  anxious  than  members  to  express 
an  opinion  on  every  contested  measure,  although,  when 
questions  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  country 
are  pending,  the  Chair  naturally  desires  to  go  upon 
record.  The  Speaker's  name,  however,  is  not  upon 
the  voting-roll,  and  is  not  called  unless  required 
under  the  rule  or  upon  his  request.  It  is  then  called 
last.  He  usually  responds  at  once,  although  a  cast- 
ing vote  may  be  given  after  the  announcement  of  the 
result,  or  when  other  business  has  intervened,  or  even 

1  14th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  1062. 

2  23d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  77;  25th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Jour- 
nal, p.  63. 

3  30th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  211.  4  Rule  i,  sec.  6. 


54     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

on  another  day  if  a  correction  of  the  roll  makes  it 
necessary. 

An  important  duty  of  the  Speaker  is  the  preservation 
of  order.  Authority  is  given  him  to  suspend  all  business, 
to  call  members  by  name,  to  clear  the  galleries,  or  even 
to  summon  the  Capitol  police.  During  the  reading  of 
the  Mulligan  letters  in  1876  threats  to  call  the  police 
emphasized  the  riotous  character  of  the  disorder,  but 
threats  sufficed.  Ordinarily  the  gavel,  or  the  mace,  or 
a  show  of  good-natured  patience  is  sufficient.  In  sup- 
pressing personalities  in  debate  or  preventing  expres- 
sions offensive  to  Senators  and  to  the  President,  the 
Chair  sometimes  names  a  member.  This  compels  the 
House  to  excuse  or  punish. 

The  Speaker  may  exclude  from  the  Congressional 
Record  words  spoken  by  a  member  after  being  called  to 
order,  but  he  has  no  authority  over  that  publication,  or 
over  the  House  Journal  after  it  is  read.  Nor  is  it  a  part 
of  his  duty  to  rule  upon  the  effect  of  a  proposition  or 
proposed  amendment,  or  to  construe  the  Constitution 
as  affecting  legislation,  or  as  relating  to  the  constitu- 
tional prerogatives  or  powers  of  the  House.  He  may 
exercise  his  discretion  as  to  submitting  motions  offered 
as  privileged  questions  other  than  those  relating  to  the 
privileges  of  the  House  and  its  members,  but  parlia- 
mentary inquiries,  which  are  in  the  nature  of  privileged 
motions,  are  always  heard  at  once,  since  answers  make 
clear  to  the  House  the  effect  of  its  proposed  action. 

Questions  of  order  that  arise  in  the  course  of  busi- 
ness are  likewise  decided  at  the  time.  In  making  such 
decisions  the  Speaker's  power  is  autocratic.  He  may 


THE  SPEAKER  55 

decide  with  or  without  debate,  and  announce  his  ruling 
with  or  without  reasons.  Speaker  Clay  never  gave 
reasons.  "The  House  will  sustain  your  decisions,"  he 
said  to  Speaker  Winthrop,  "but  there  will  always  be 
men  to  cavil  and  quarrel  over  your  reasons."  1  Never- 
theless, Speakers  have  very  generally  and  properly 
ignored  this  advice,  for  a  clear,  terse  statement  not  only 
adds  dignity  to  the  Chair  and  strengthens  his  position 
as  an  impartial  judge,  but  it  instructs  the  House  in  the 
parliamentary  code  governing  legislation.  Decisions 
usually  follow  precedent.  In  one  instance  Speaker  Cobb 
did  so,  though  it  violated  his  individual  judgment.2 
Other  Speakers  have  made  similar  admissions.3  Oppor- 
tunity to  be  heard  is  first  given  the  one  raising  the 
point  of  order,  and  afterward  to  those  whom  the  Chair 
desires  to  hear.  Though  a  dozen  seek  recognition  he 
may  refuse  all,  declaring  that  the  Chair  is  ready  to  rule. 
From  his  decision,  however,  any  member  may  appeal. 
"Consequently,"  said  Speaker  Reed,  "there  is  not  and 
cannot  be  any  arbitrary  control  of  this  body  against  its 
will.  The  Speaker,  for  the  time  being  and  as  a  matter 
of  convenience  arising  from  the  nature  of  his  office, 
makes  a  ruling  upon  the  subject  which  is  before  the 
House;  but  that  ruling  is  always  subject  to  revision  by 
the  House  itself,  and  no  one  can  take  away  that  right 
on  the  part  of  the  House."  4 
Theoretically  this  is  true.  But  in  practice  few  mem- 

^  l  Robert  C.  Winthrop,  Life  of  Henry  Clay,  p.  5. 

*  31st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  1280. 

8  26th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  246;  32d  Cong./2d  Sess.,  Journal, 
p.  234. 

4  51st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  741-49. 


56    'THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

bers,  especially  of  a  Speaker's  party,  ever  care  to  offend 
by  voting  to  overrule  one  whose  good-will  is  desired. 
All  wish  to  catch  his  eye,  to  receive  recognition,  to 
avoid  a  slight,  and  to  be  known  as  friendly,  for,  if  so 
disposed,  he  can  in  many  ways  help  or  hinder.  This 
makes  members  hesitate  to  displease  or  irritate  him. 
Anxiety  to  succeed  inspires  every  action,  and  often  to 
suffer  in  silence  is  preferable  to  insisting  upon  fair  play. 
An  appeal  from  the  Chair's  decision,  therefore,  although 
the  boasted  parliamentary  right  of  every  member,  is 
seldom  indulged  by  one  of  his  own  party  or  sustained 
if  taken  by  the  Opposition.  Indeed,  his  party  support- 
ers, often  at  the  expense  of  then*  better  judgment,  ac- 
quire the  habit  of  falling  into  line.  This  subtle  power  of 
the  Chair  interprets  a  further  remark  of  Speaker  Reed, 
that  "the  conduct  of  an  assembly  depends  much  more 
upon  the  conduct  of  the  chairman  than  upon  all  other 
conditions  combined."  l  In  other  words,  a  Speaker  who 
creates  a  sentiment  that,  whatever  others  may  do,  he 
will  treat  all  with  absolute  fairness,  must  incite  a  similar 
spirit  on  the  part  of  members  and  thus  avoid  the  con- 
fusion that  often  impedes  legislation. 

If  the  duty  of  deciding  questions  of  order  is  the  most 
difficult,  administering  the  Speaker's  right  of  recognition 
has  been  the  most  embarrassing.  Like  committee  ap- 
pointments the  right  of  recognition  formerly  dealt  with 
the  personal  ambition  of  members.  In  its  very  nature 
recognition  is  peremptory,  absolute  in  authority,  sub- 
ject to  the  closest  scrutiny,  instantaneous  in  effect,  and 
to  a  legislator  as  necessary  to  achievement  as  food  is  to 
1  Thomas  B.  Reed,  Parliamentary  Rules,  p.  36. 


THE  SPEAKER  57 

life.  Furthermore,  to  be  of  service  it  must  be  granted 
at  the  opportune  moment.  Thus  it  becomes  a  step- 
ladder  to  a  member's  success,  and  the  Chair's  disposi- 
tion to  ignore  him,  or  to  limit  his  activities,  encourages 
the  taunt  of  partiality. 

The  rule  adopted  in  1789  implied  that  the  Chair, 
when  two  or  more  members  happen  to  rise  at  once, 
should  exercise  its  judgment.1  When  a  member  excepted 
to  this  interpretation,  complaining  that  the  Chair  rec- 
ognized another  than  the  one  who  first  arose,  Speaker 
Boyd  replied  that  "the  rules  confer  authority  upon  the 
Chair  to  name  the  member  entitled  to  the  floor."  2 
This  did  not  mean  a  haphazard  recognition,  for  early 
in  the  history  of  the  House  unwritten  laws  governing 
recognition  began  to  accumulate.  Thus,  members  were 
entitled  to  the  floor  to  present  questions  of  privilege, 
or  privileged  motions  and  reports.  As  a  rule  chairmen 
of  committees  or  those  authorized  to  speak  for  them 
were  preferred  to  individuals.  As  early  as  1843  Speaker 
White  declared  this  to  be  the  invariable  practice,  al- 
though another  had  previously  risen  and  addressed  the 
Chair; 3  and  Speaker  Randall,  in  1880,  held  that  when 
a  member,  under  instructions  from  a  committee,  sought 
the  floor  for  a  motion  to  suspend  the  rules,  he  always 
recognized  him  in  preference  to  an  individual  member.4 
The  enforcement  of  these  rules,  intended  to  expedite 

1  "  When  two  or  more  members  happen  to  rise  at  once,  the  Speaker 
shall  name  the  member  who  is  first  to  speak."  (Rule  xiv,  sec.  2, 
adopted  April,  1789.) 

8  S2d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  405. 

8  27th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  211. 

4  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  925. 


58     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

important  business,  has  never  created  complaint.  Mem- 
bers recognize  the  priority  of  business  as  quickly  as  the 
Chair  and  gracefully  yield.  But  whenever  a  Speaker 
began  recognizing  members  for  political  or  personal 
reasons,  it  aroused  bitter  resentment. 

While  most  Speakers,  perhaps,  have  sought  to  be 
fair,  many  of  them  adopted  methods  well  calculated  to 
cause  irritation.  Speaker  Cobb,  though  one  of  the  most 
amiable  of  men,  arbitrarily  refused  the  floor  to  advo- 
cates of  a  Homestead  Bill,1  while  Linn  Boyd,  his  suc- 
cessor, sought  to  deprive  Thomas  H.  Benton  of  time  to 
finish  his  speech  on  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise. "I  wanted  the  country  to  understand,"  said 
John  Wentworth,  of  Illinois,  "that  the  oldest  man  in 
Congress,  who  was  here  when  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise was  adopted,  was  refused  a  courtesy  which  had 
been  refused  to  no  other  man,  and  when  there  was  no 
hope  from  courtesy,  I  moved  an  amendment  upon  which 
Benton  was  recognized.  As  he  concluded  in  triumph 
Douglas  came  to  my  seat  and  said,  tauntingly:  'The 
Abolitionists  are  quite  successful  under  you  as  their 
new  leader/  "  2  After  the  Civil  War,  Speakers  used  the 
right  of  recognition  no  less  arbitrarily.  Randall  refused 
the  floor  to  a  new  member  lest  something  rash  might 
be  said.3  He  held  that  "the  right  of  recognition  is  with 
the  Chair  under  the  rules  and  under  the  practice."  4  It 
is  notorious  that  Blaine  withheld  recognition  until 
allowed  to  censor  the  proposed  measure.  The  Nation 

1  George  W.  Julian,  Political  Recollections,  p.  104. 
1  John  Wentworth,  Congressional  Experiences,  p.  54. 
8  46th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2236. 
4  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  925., 


THE  SPEAKER  59 

called  it  "bargaining  with  members  for  recognition."  l 
Carlisle  made  no  secret  of  refusing  recognition  to  propo- 
sitions unacceptable  to  him.  For  this  reason  Randall's 
pet  measure  to  repeal  the  tax  on  tobacco  never  obtained 
a  hearing.  In  like  manner  Carlisle  allowed  public  build- 
ings, bridges,  and  other  important  bills  to  die  for  want 
of  recognition.  On  one  occasion  Camion  refused  recog- 
nition for  the  consideration  of  what  he  thought  an  ex- 
travagant public  building  bill,  although  a  majority 
petitioned  for  it. 

The  custom  of  inquiring,  "For  what  purpose  does 
the  gentleman  rise?"  before  deciding  the  question  of 
recognition,  belongs  to  the  Reed  period.  Prior  to  its 
adoption  Speakers  sometimes  inadvertently  recognized 
members  seeking  the  introduction  of  undesirable  resolu- 
tions, but  this  inquiry  disclosed  their  purpose  in  ad- 
vance. In  the  Fifty-sixth  Congress  William  Sulzer,  of 
New  York,  afterward  governor  of  his  State,  in  answer 
to  the  irritating  question,  explained  that  he  rose  to 
move  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  expressing  sympathy 
for  the  Boers.  Speaker  Henderson  replied  that  "the 
Chair  must  recognize  members  upon  matters  which  the 
Chair  thinks  should  be  considered."  2  This  inconsider- 
ate remark  strengthened  the  belief  of  the  country  that 
the  Speaker  absolutely  controlled  legislation.  In  the 
preceding  Congress  Speaker  Reed  had  exhibited  more 
tact  when  Benton  McMillin,  of  Tennessee,  a  member  of 
high  courage  and  dogged  perseverance,  sought  the  floor. 
On  being  asked  the  purpose  of  his  rising,  McMillin 
explained  his  desire  to  present  for  immediate  considera- 

1  Vol.  xxvi,  p.  226.  *  56th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  5227. 


60     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

tion  a  resolution  favoring  Cuban  independence.  There- 
upon the  Chair,  while  fumbling  the  gavel,  looked  sharply 
at  Nelson  Dingley,  the  floor  leader,  who  presently  rose 
and  moved  to  adjourn.  As  this  motion  took  precedence 
of  McMillin's  request,  the  House  quickly  dissolved, 
leaving  the  Tennessean  on  his  feet  indulging  in  a  free 
trade  of  ironical  blandishments.1 

In  earlier  years  when  refused  recognition  a  member 
had  the  right  of  appeal.  Speaker  Taylor  frankly  ad- 
mitted this  right.  Speaker  White  did  likewise.2  Hunter 
even  invited  it,3  and  Pennington  yielded  to  the  ruling  of 
his  predecessors.4  Indeed,  this  was  the  settled  practice 
for  nearly  a  century.  But  in  February,  1881,  Speaker 
Randall,  refusing  to  adopt  the  precedent,  held  "the 
right  of  recognition  just  as  absolutely  in  the  Chair  as 
the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  absolute  in  its 
interpretation  of  the  law."  6  Two  years  later  Speaker 
Keifer  made  a  similar  ruling,  startling  the  House  with 
inexcusable  ignorance  by  declaring  that  "no  appeal  of 
the  kind  had  ever  been  entertained."  6  These  decisions 
put  members  desiring  recognition  for  measures  not  priv- 
ileged wholly  at  the  mercy  of  the  Chair.  Although  the 
Speaker  based  his  power  upon  the  ground  of  his  party 
leadership  and  his  right  as  an  individual  member  to 
object  to  unanimous  consent,  he  did  not  disarm  the 
critic  who  claimed  that  he  should  trust  to  the  vigilance 

55th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2449. 
19th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  493. 
26th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  433. 
S6th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  496. 
46th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2236. 
47th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  4554-55. 


THE  SPEAKER  61 

of  his  floor  leader  and  thus  preserve  the  appearance,  at 
least,  of  an  unprejudiced  presiding  officer. 

For  the  disposition  of  resolutions  of  the  Boer  and 
Cuban  type,  offered  largely  for  political  purposes  only, 
the  House  cared  little,  while  matters  of  public  impor- 
tance could  be  reached  through  privileged  motions  or 
on  fixed  days  of  the  week.  But  a  class  of  unprivileged 
public  bills,  benefiting  various  districts,  deeply  con- 
cerned the  personal  welfare  of  members,  and  as  their 
consideration  depended  upon  obtaining  recognition  for 
unanimous  consent  or  to  move  a  suspension  of  the  rules, 
scenes  of  great  confusion  occurred  during  the  time  set 
apart  for  such  purposes.  "We  crowd  in  front  of  the 
clerk's  desk  with  bills  of  which  the  House  knows 
nothing,"  wrote  a  member  in  Speaker  Randall's  time, 
"each  seeking  for  preference  and  recognition."  l  To 
avoid  these  riotous  demonstrations  the  custom  of  sub- 
mitting such  bills  privately  to  the  Speaker  gradually 
became  the  only  avenue  to  recognition,  since  he  listed 
and  recognized  only  those  measures  he  approved.  This 
plan  worked  very  well  for  those  whom  he  favored,  but 
it  provoked  bitter  criticism  among  the  independent 
spirits  of  courage  whose  errands  of  mendicancy  too 
often  proved  futile,  while  it  absolutely  barred  non  grata 
members.  "Because  of  this  practice,"  says  McCall, 
"Speakers  have  probably  been  denounced  more  bitterly 
and  have  won  a  larger  measure  of  unpopularity  than 
upon  any  other  single  ground."  2 

To  these  assumptions  of  power  can  easily  be  traced 

1  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  1053. 

8  Samuel  W.  McCall,  The  Business  of  Congress,  p.  128. 


62     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

an  increased  use  of  dilatory  motions.  Inspired  by  per- 
sonal resentment,  members,  invoking  all  the  obstruc- 
tive methods  known  to  skilled  parliamentarians,  made 
the  Record  a  valuable  publication  for  disclosing  the  pop- 
ularity of  such  spite  work  during  the  administrations  of 
Speaker  Randall  and  his  immediate  successors.  By  the 
time  Carlisle  reached  his  third  term  as  Speaker  it  became 
so  easy  to  muster  a  sufficient  number  of  disgruntled 
members  to  delay  or  prevent  legislation  that  the  House, 
in  the  Fiftieth  Congress,  although  in  continuous  session 
longer  than  any  of  its  predecessors,  passed  only  one 
measure  except  such  as  received  unanimous  consent.1 

It  is  easy  to  understand  how  such  conditions  would 
not  improve  the  temper  of  members,  and  although 
strong  Speakers  and  large  party  majorities  delayed  the 
adoption  of  better  methods,  the  House,  in  the  Sixty- 
first  Congress,  established,  as  elsewhere  stated,2  a  calen- 
dar for  unanimous  consents,3  and  fixed  each  Wednesday 
for  a  call  of  committees.4  These  rules  at  once  dispensed 
with  journeys  to  the  Speaker's  room.  The  use  of  privi- 
leged motions,  privileged  measures,  privileged  reports, 
and  privileged  business  on  fixed  days  of  the  week  has 
also  materially  limited  the  Speaker's  discretionary  rec- 
ognition, so  that  when  the  Chair  now  asks  a  member 
the  purpose  of  his  rising,  it  is  to  ascertain  whether, 
under  the  rules,  his  business  entitles  him  to  the  floor. 

Although  the  rules  specify  the  subjects  of  which  each 
committee  has  jurisdiction,  much  is  left  in  the  reference 

1  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  North  American  Review,  vol.  149,  p.  293. 

»  See  chap,  x,  p.  211. 

8  61st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Rule  xiii,  sec.  3. 

4  Ibid.,  Rule  xxiv,  sec.  7. 


THE   SPEAKER  63 

of  bills  to  the  Speaker's  judgment.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
in  the  power  of  the  House  to  refer  bills  to  any  commit- 
tee. When  the  Speaker  has  sent  a  bill  to  a  particular 
committee,  it  is  in  order  under  the  rules  for  the  chairman 
of  such  committee  to  move  a  change  of  reference  to 
some  other;  and  it  is  likewise  in  order  for  the  chairman 
of  a  committee  claiming  jursidiction  of  a  bill  referred 
to  some  other  committee  to  move  a  change  of  reference 
to  his  committee.  Such  motions  must  be  put  by  the 
Speaker  and  decided  by  vote  of  the  House  without  de- 
bate. So  it  has  happened  that  this  control  of  reference 
by  the  House  has  resulted  in  securing  legislation  by  the 
report  of  a  committee  that  under  the  rules  in  the  first 
instance  had  no  jurisdiction  of  the  subject-matter  of 
the  bill.  This  was  plainly  illustrated  on  February  26, 
1894,  when  the  Oleomargarine  Bill,  which  had  been  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  was,  on 
motion  of  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture, 
transferred  to  the  latter  committee.  As  the  bill  was  on 
its  face  a  tax  bill,  it  belonged  to  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means,  but  as  it  was  in  point  of  fact  a  measure 
proposing  the  exercise  of  the  police  power  under  the 
guise  of  the  taxing  power,  the  House  decided  to  send  it 
to  the  committee  friendly  to  its  enactment. 

The  alleged  inability  of  members  to  secure  the  dis- 
charge of  a  committee  from  the  further  consideration  of 
bills  which  it  refused  to  report  caused  much  complaint. 
Such  measures  were  usually  opposed  for  party  reasons, 
and  the  procedure  as  revised  in  1880  made  it  necessary, 
in  order  to  carry  a  motion  to  discharge,  to  suspend  the 
rules  by  a  two-thirds  vote.  This  confined  the  discussion 


64     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

to  forty  minutes  and  greatly  increased  the  difficulty  of 
securing  favorable  action.  Under  the  Reed  rules,  adopted 
in  1890,  such  motions  were  referred  without  debate  to 
the  Committee  on  Rules,  which  brought  them  directly 
to  the  attention  of  men  selected  to  determine  among 
other  things  what  measures  the  party  in  power  should 
support.  Although  it  rarely  if  ever  occurred  that  any 
committee  declined  to  report  a  bill  that  a  majority  of 
the  House  really  desired  to  consider,  the  spirit  of  change 
which  eliminated  the  Speaker  from  the  Committee  on 
Rules  *  included  a  rule,  adopted  in  June,  1910,  pro- 
viding that  if  a  bill  be  not  reported  by  the  committee 
to  which  it  is  referred,  its  author  may  file  a  motion  of 
discharge,  to  be  called  up  in  order  of  its  entry  on  any 
Monday  devoted  to  the  suspension  of  the  rules,  and,  if 
seconded  by  a  majority,  a  debate  of  twenty  minutes 
shall  follow,  after  which,  if  the  motion  again  be  sus- 
tained, the  bill  shall  pass  to  the  "discharge  calendar" 
as  if  regularly  reported.2  This  rule  encountered  opposi- 
tion. It  was  plainly  impracticable  and  as  plainly  lim- 
ited the  power  of  the  House  over  its  committees;  but 
the  fact  that  the  ingenious  device,  although  a  doubtful 
experiment,  seemed  to  give  all  bills  a  fair  hearing,  satis- 
fied the  clamor  for  reform.  Thus  the  Speaker,  at  the 
close  of  the  Sixty-first  Congress  (1911),  was  practically 
shorn  of  his  power  save  the  appointment  of  committees, 
and  the  right  of  recognition  for  motions  to  suspend 
the  rules,  which  latter  power  he  still  retains.  As  antici- 
pated, however,  the  rule  to  discharge  a  committee,  even 

1  See  chap,  x,  p.  212. 

2  51st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  8439-45.  Rule  xxvii,  sec.  4. 


THE   SPEAKER  65 

after  its  amendment,1  has  proved  impracticable.  Within 
twenty-four  hours  after  its  adoption  members  loaded  it 
with  so  many  motions  —  some  of  them  being  purposely 
filed  to  prevent  the  consideration  of  a  genuine  motion 
—  that  the  House,  had  it  given  all  its  time  to  their 
consideration,  could  not  have  disposed  of  them. 

1  The  next  House  amended  the  rule,  allowing  a  committee  to  retain 
a  bill  fifteen  days  and  limiting  each  member  to  two  motions  at  a  time. 
It  also  limited  the  chances  of  reaching  the  "discharge  calendar"  by 
fixing  its  place  below  motions  to  suspend  the  rules. 


CHAPTER  V   v 

THE  SPEAKER  AND   COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS 

THE  Speaker's  greatest  power  has  its  source  in  his 
authority  to  appoint  commiUees.  At  the  outset  (1789) 
they  were  selected  by  ballot,  but  this  plan  having 
proved  unsatisfactory,  the  House,  in  January,  1790, 
adopted  a  rule  that  "all  committees  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  Speaker  unless  otherwise  specially  di- 
rected by  the  House."  l  Thus  the  House,  relinquishing 
even  its  right  of  review,  gave  the  Speaker  a  preroga- 
tive which  he  continued  to  possess  for  nearly  a  cen- 
tury and  a  quarter. 

This  power  soon  made  the  Speakership  a  citadel  about 
which  factional  strife  and  party  warfare  continually 
/  raged.  Instead  of  being  impartial  boards  as  originally 
intended,  committees  became  actively  partisan,  being 
framed  to  safeguard  party  policies.  As  early  as  1791 
Speaker  Trumbull,  in  appointing  a  committee  to  study 
the  slave  trade  with  a  view  to  its  limitation  and  amelio- 
ration, selected  members  either  opposed  or  indifferent 
to  the  object  of  the  investigation.2  For  years  the  elec- 
tion of  a  Speaker  turned  on  his  attitude  toward  slavery. 
In  1820,  after  Speaker  Clay's  resignation,  it  required 
twenty-two  ballots  to  elect  John  W.  Taylor,  then  known 
as  the  anti-slavery  candidate.  John  Quincy  Adams, 

1  1st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  140. 
*  2d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  241. 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  67 

thundering  against  the  "iniquity"  of  Speaker-appointed 
committees,  charged  that  the  turbulent  and  prolonged 
Speakership  struggle  in  1839  hinged  on  saving  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.1  After  the  more  violent 
contest  in  1849  Joshua  R.  Giddings  expressed  the  belief 
that  the  Speaker,  exercising  his  right  to  frame  com- 
mittees, exerted  more  influence  over  the  destinies  of  the 
nation  than  any  member  of  the  Government  except  the 
President.2 

If  subsequent  contests  were  less  violent,  they  were 
no  less  effective.  Speakers  continued  to  safeguard  party 
policies  by  the  appointment  of  partisan  committees. 
Indeed,  Speaker  Hunter's  statement,  that  "the  party 
upon  which  it  naturally  devolved  to  propose  a  question 
ought  to  have  the  power  to  present  its  proposition 
in  the  shape  for  which  it  is  willing  to  be  responsible," 
was  never  disputed.3  But  when  personality  enters, 
capriciousness  begins,  thus  creating  the  impression 
that  Speaker-made  committees  open  a  way  to  reward 
friends,  to  cripple  the  competent,  to  humiliate  the  inde- 
pendent, to  favor  special  interests,  and  to  attract  wide- 
reaching  support. 

It  is  doubtful  if  Speakers  have,  as  a  rule,  been  unduly 
partial  in  their  appointments.  Custom  based  on  un- 
written law  has  obliged  them  to  recognize  long  service, 
peculiar  fitness,  party  standing,  and  a  fair  division 
among  States  and  important  groups  of  men.  Neverthe- 
less, if  the  sporadic  testimony  of  members  be  accepted, 

1  Diary,  vol.  x,  p.  379. 

2  George  W.  Julian,  Life  of  Giddings,  p.  215. 
8  26th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  239. 


68     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

grounds  for  complaint  have  existed  ever  since  Speaker 
Macon,  to  gratify  President  Jefferson,  placed  John 
Randolph,  then  a  young  man  in  his  second  term,  at  the 
head  of  Ways  and  Means.  "Macon,"  says  Adams,  the 
historian,  "was  a  typical,  homespun  planter,  honest 
and  simple,  but  knowing  little  of  the  world  beyond  the 
borders  of  Carolina."  l  This  may  excuse  him  for  set- 
ting a  very  bad  precedent,  but  with  larger  knowledge 
his  successors  not  infrequently  followed  his  example. 
Diaries,  memoirs,  and  volumes  of  reminiscences  afford 
abundant  evidence  of  such  partiality.  John  Quincy 
Adams,  the  most  distinguished  complainant,  resented 
the  action  of  one  Speaker  who  put  him  at  the  head  of 
a  committee  which  had  nothing  to  do,  complained  that 
another  desired  to  injure  him  because  his  committee 
work,  if  he  did  his  duty,  would  make  him  enemies,  and 
charged  that  a  third,  offensively  subservient  to  Daniel 
Webster,  refused  to  give  him  the  chairmanship  of  For- 
eign Relations.2  Giddings  had  his  grievances  also. 
Smarting  under  Speaker  Winthrop's  appointments  the 
distinguished  Abolitionist  refused  to  support,  and  prob- 
ably defeated,  him  for  reelection  in  1849.  A  few  years 
later  Orr's  action  in  dropping  him  from  the  Committee 
on  Territories  created  a  storm  of  indignation,  although 
every  one  understood  it  to  be  for  political,  not  personal, 
reasons.  The  Speaker  desired  to  smooth  the  way  for  the 
hotly  contested  Kansas  Bill,  and  very  naturally  omitted 
the  ablest  opponent  of  the  measure.  For  the  same 
reason,  when  framing  a  special  committee  of  fifteen  to 

1  Henry  Adams,  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i,  p.  267. 
8  Diary,  vol.  x,  pp.  214,  541. 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  69 

investigate  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  Orr  appointed 
eight  members  hostile  to  the  inquiry.1  In  like  manner 
Blaine  put  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of  Massachusetts,  at 
the  head  of  a  committee  to  investigate  the  Ku-Klux 
outrages  and  selected  other  members  who  opposed  his 
radical  views.  This  nettled  the  bold  politician,  who 
charged  that  the  Speaker  picked  them  for  their  plia- 
bility rather  than  for  their  ability.2  The  Maine 
statesman  could  hobble  Butler,  but  he  could  not 
muzzle  him. 

Blaine's  experience  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  the 
difficulties  encountered  in  framing  committees.  "Your 
father,"  wrote  a  member  of  the  Speaker's  family,  "left 
for  New  York  on  Wednesday.  He  had  cotton  and  wool 
manufacturers  to  meet  in  Boston,  and,  over  and  above 
all,  pressure  to  resist  or  permit.  As  fast  as  he  gets  his 
committees  arranged,  just  so  fast  some  after  considera- 
tion comes  up  which  overtopples  the  whole  list  like  a 
row  of  bricks."  3  The  construction  of  committees,  hav- 
ing regard  for  harmony  and  the  effect  upon  legislation 
as  a  whole,  requires  much  patience,  rare  skill,  and  a 
thorough  knowledge  of  the  views  and  fitness  of  mem- 
bers. There  must  also  be  more  or  less  bargaining.  It 
is  well  known  that  Speaker  Carlisle,  before  appointing 
A.  H.  Buckner,  of  Missouri,  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Banking  and  Currency  and  Richard  P.  Bland,  of 
Missouri,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Coinage,  re- 
quired personal  assurances  that  the  former  would  not 

1  35th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  679. 

2  42d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  124. 

3  Gail  Hamilton,  Life  of  James  G.  Elaine,  p.  263. 


70     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

attack  the  national  banking  system  and  the  latter 
would  stifle  his  scheme  for  the  unlimited  coinage  of 
silver.1  In  order  to  secure  members  of  known  stability 
on  important  committees,  subject  at  times  to  great 
pressure,  Speaker  Cannon,  not  infrequently  preceding 
appointment  with  careful  inquiry,  demoted  some  and 
promoted  others.  The  necessity  for  such  vigilance  is 
obvious,  since  a  committee,  charged  with  the  passage 
of  desirable  legislation  at  an  acute  crisis  in  a  party's 
policy,  may  need  a  new  head,  possessing  greater  wisdom 
and  rarer  tact.  But  why  a  Speaker  should  call  on 
"cotton  and  wool  manufacturers"  when  arranging  his 
committee  lists  is  not  so  clear.  Possibly  these  visits 
were  among  the  occult  things  creating  the  oft-reiterated 
accusation  that  Elaine,  like  Randall,  had  too  intimate 
an  acquaintance  with  "gentlemen  of  the  lobby." 

For  sins  of  omission  and  commission  Speakers  rarely 
escape  censure.  It  never  comes  at  the  time  of  offend- 
ing. Members  are  too  tactful  to  display  pique  so  long 
as  future  favors  are  needed.  But  opportunity  to  express 
one's  displeasure  is  presented  on  the  closing  day  of  a 
Congress,  when  a  veteran  member,  rising  in  the  presence 
of  a  full  and  orderly  House,  offers  the  customary  resolu- 
tion of  thanks  to  the  Chair.  This  tribute  derives  its 
chief  grace  from  the  manner  of  its  bestowal.  If  the 
resolution  be  presented  by  a  member  of  the  Opposition 
and  is  adopted  unanimously  by  a  rising  vote,  the  com- 
pliment is  complete;  otherwise  it  becomes  a  mere 
formality  and  is  not  unlikely  to  disclose  resentment 
or  ill-will.  To  avoid  unpleasant  speeches  the  previ- 
1  New  York  Tribune.  December  29,  1883. 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  71 

ous  question  is  sometimes  moved,  but  this  does  not  cut 
off  a  demand  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  which,  whether 
called  or  not,  represents  a  blight  that  mars  the  oc- 
casion. 

The  House  has  never  failed  to  thank  its  Speaker, 
although  in  1801  it  came  perilously  near  humiliating 
Speaker  Sedgwick.  To  the  end  Sedgwick  was  an  im- 
placable Federalist  as  well  as  an  autocratic  Speaker,  and 
on  the  day  of  thanks  the  Opposition  not  only  refused 
to  present  or  support  the  resolution,  but  several  of  his 
own  party  voted  against  it.  In  dropping  John  Randolph 
from  Ways  and  Means,  Speaker  Varnum  provoked  the 
penalty  of  a  divided  vote.  Even  Henry  Clay,  the  most 
courteous  of  colleagues  and  the  most  considerate  of 
Speakers,  did  not  please  everybody  —  a  success  rare  in 
human  achievement.  But  not  until  Stevenson's  day 
did  the  word  "impartial"  become  a  red  rag.  When  the 
clerk,  reading  the  stereotyped  resolution,  reached  this 
expression  of  fair  dealing,  wrote  John  Quincy  Adams, 
"a  burst  of  laughter  filled  the  House."  1  Stevenson 
acted  as  a  sort  of  patronage  secretary  to  President 
Jackson,  and  when  he  announced  his  committees  aston- 
ishment often  deepened  into  consternation.  One  mem- 
ber of  dauntless  courage  moved  a  vote  of  censure.2  It 
was  not  easy  to  thank  such  a  Speaker,  and  after  elimi- 
nating the  irritating  word  his  friends  wisely  deferred 
action  until  the  evening  session,  and  then  begged  its 
adoption  in  the  absence  of  a  quorum.3 

1  Diary,  vol.  vin,  p.  532. 

2  22d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  2580. 
8  22d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Register,  p.  193. 


72     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

James  K.  Polk  belonged  in  Stevenson's  class.  He 
used  the  committees  to  support  the  President  and  the 
right  of  recognition  to  weaken  his  opponents.  His  ap- 
pointments aroused  the  hostility  of  his  party  until  it 
finally  denied  him  the  privilege  of  naming  a  most  im- 
portant committee,  charged  with  the  investigation  of  a 
sensational  defalcation  in  the  New  York  custom-house. 
It  was  said  of  him  that  he  had  followers  and  enemies, 
but  no  friends.  To  thank  him  at  the  close  of  his  last 
term  became  serious  business.  A  coterie  of  distinguished 
Whigs,  the  ablest  debaters  in  the  House,  were  ready  for 
a  lark,  and  when  the  resolution  came,  Sergeant  S. 
Prentiss,  of  Mississippi,  whose  oratory  has  been  com- 
pared to  Patrick  Henry's,  precipitated  a  long  parlia- 
mentary battle.  Of  this  famous  speech  little  is  pre- 
served, but  it  lingered  in  the  memories  of  those  who 
heard  it  as  Prentiss's  most  remarkable  outburst.  He 
called  the  Speaker  "the  tool  of  the  Executive"  and 
"  the  despair  of  his  party."  As  if  that  were  not  enough, 
he  recalled  oblique  recognitions  and  obsequious  ap- 
pointments, insisting  that  to  speak  of  such  an  one  as 
"impartial"  was  "to  declare  a  lie."  These  impassioned 
utterances,  so  dazzlingly  bitter,  threw  Administration 
leaders  into  consternation.  Rhett  and  Mason  and 
Dixon  H.  Lewis,  of  Alabama,  sat  confounded.  They 
were  unprepared  for  such  a  demonstration,  and  when, 
later  in  the  debate,  some  one  moved  the  previous  ques- 
tion, Prentiss  threw  the  House  into  great  laughter  by 
suggesting  that  the  demand  was  as  humiliating  as  to 
move  it  on  a  resolution  of  respect  to  a  deceased  mem- 
ber. A  roll-call  showed  that  the  number  thanking 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  73 

Polk  fell  far  short  of  those  who  had  voted  for  him,1  — 
"an  extraordinary  opposition,*'  says  a  careful  student 
of  parliamentary  precedents,  "to  a  resolution  usually 
considered  a  mere  formal  courtesy."  2 

As  sincere  regard  seldom  grows  in  a  soil  exacerbated 
by  personal  slights,  it  is  not  surprising,  perhaps,  that 
members  express  their  resentment  upon  these  occasions 
when  the  Speaker  desires  a  certificate  for  fair  dealing. 
"I  voted  against  the  thanks  to  Jones,"  wrote  John 
Quincy  Adams.  "  The  testimony  to  his  impartiality  was 
too  broad  a  lie  for  me  to  swallow."  3  Thomas  B.  Reed, 
unlike  Adams,  left  no  written  reason  for  refusing  to 
thank  Speaker  Crisp  at  the  close  of  the  Fifty-third 
Congress,  but  when  this  great  master  of  parliamentary 
law  kept  his  seat  after  all  others  had  risen,  the  feeling 
obtained  that  his  action  seriously  impaired,  if  it  did  not 
actually  destroy,  the  homage  of  his  colleagues.4  After 
the  Polk  episode  the  word  "impartial"  proved  to  be 
such  a  handy  peg  upon  which  to  hang  objections  that  of 
the  eleven  Speakers  immediately  succeeding  him  seven 
failed  to  be  honored  by  its  use.5  Even  the  grace  and 

1  25th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  696. 

*  M.  P.  Follett,  The  Speaker,  p.  87. 

*  Diary,  vol.  xn,  p.  179. 

4  Speaker  Crisp's  remarks  on  August  29,  1893,  gave  rise  to  Reed's 
action.  See  53d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  vol.  25,  p.  1034. 

6  John  White,  Kentucky;  27th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  397-99. 
Robert  C.  Winthrop,  Massachusetts;  30th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe, 
p.  695.  Linn  Boyd,  Kentucky;  33d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  1175. 
Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  Massachusetts;  34th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe, 
p.  998.  James  L.  Or,  South  Carolina;  35th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe, 
p.  1671.  William  Pennington,  New  Jersey;  36th  Cong.,  2d  Sess., 
Globe,  p.  1424.  Galusha  A.  Grow,  Pennsylvania;  37th  Cong.,  2d 
Sess.,  Globe,  p.  1544. 


74     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

fairness  which  characterized  the  conduct  of  Speakers 
Winthrop  and  Banks  did  not  receive  the  appreciation 
conveyed  by  this  term.  Howell  Cobb  profited  by  it  in 
1851,  but  thereafter  it  remained  in  eclipse  until  the 
unfailing  tact  and  extraordinary  courtesy  of  Speaker 
Colfax,  rivaling  that  of  Henry  Clay,  had  mellowed  the 
House  into  perennial  good  nature.  Since  its  revival  in 
the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  it  has  lost  its  place  but  once,1 
although  to  avoid  the  irritating  scenes  that  embarrassed 
the  friends  of  Polk,  the  passage  of  the  resolution  has 
occasionally  needed  the  gag  of  the  previous  question. 
This  occurred  at  the  close  of  James  G.  Elaine's  first 
term  as  Speaker.  His  appointments,  too  often  repre- 
senting sinister  ends  which  illuminated  if  they  did  not 
open  the  avenue  to  the  White  House,  had  left  mixed 
sensations  on  too  many  minds  for  his  friends  to  hazard 
a  discussion  of  the  resolution.2  Similar  tactics  to  avoid 
threatened  debate  disturbed  the  close  of  the  Forty-fifth 
and  Fifty-seventh  Congresses.  Randall  had  kept  the 
unflinching  eye  of  a  hawk  upon  "the  timid  warblers  of 
the  grove,"  as  he  called  those  who  resented  the  views 
of  his  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  and  their  readi- 
ness to  object  to  the  courtesies  of  the  closing  day  did 
not  escape  the  vigilance  of  his  friends.3  What  caused 
the  trouble  with  Speaker  Henderson  is  more  obscure. 
His  parliamentary  powers  remained  hi  the  egg,  and  his 
enemies  watched  and  waited.  But  by  ordering  the  pre- 
vious question  the  House  lost  its  opportunity  of  hearing 

1  It  was  omitted  from  the  resolution  thanking  Speaker  Keifer. 
47th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  3769. 
*  41st  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  1911. 
»  45th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2403. 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  75 

their  story.    Bourke  Cochran,  of  New  York,  like  Pren- 
tiss,  would  have  told  it  well.1 

At  the  close  of  the  Fifty-first  Congress,  the  Opposition 
secured  a  roll-call  on  the  resolution  thanking  Speaker 
Reed.  This  new  gladiator  had  slain  every  kind  of  dila- 
tory tactics,  until  broken  precedents,  like  fragments  of 
marble  on  the  Acropolis,  indicated  the  destruction  of 
old  and  revered  forms.  But  the  work  of  legislation  had 
received  an  uplift.  Nevertheless,  one  hundred  and 
eighteen  members  refused  to  thank  him.  The  result  re- 
called the  lines  of  the  poet:  — 

"When  the  judgment's  weak,  the  prejudice  is  strong." 

Yet  six  and  eight  years  later,  after  Speaker  Crisp  had 
approved  counting  a  quorum,  many  of  these  members 
cheerfully  and  enthusiastically  thanked  the  author  of 
the  "Reed  Rules."  So  quickly  does  prejudice  vanish 
from  the  House. 

But  prejudice  against  the  Speaker's  authority  to 
appoint  committees  never  wholly  disappeared.  Per- 
sonal resentments  kept  it  smouldering,  and  sometimes 

1  "Mr.  Payne,  of  New  York  (having  finished  his  remarks).  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  demand  the  previous  question. 

"Mr.  Cochran,  of  New  York.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  demand  the  yeas  and 
nays. 

[The  question  of  ordering  them  was  taken.] 

"The  Speaker  pro  tempore  (Mr.  Cannon).  Twenty-one  members 
have  arisen.  Necessary  to  call  the  ayes  and  noes,  forty-two.  The  yeas 
and  nays  are  refused.  The  question  now  is  on  agreeing  to  the  resolu- 
tion. 

"Mr.  Cochran.   I  demand  the  yeas  and  nays. 

[The  question  was  taken.] 

"The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  Seventeen  gentlemen  have  arisen.  The 
ayes  and  noes  are  refused.  The  ayes  have  it  and  the  resolution  is 
passed."  (57th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  3071.) 


76     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

fanned  it  into  a  blaze  when  an  ambitious  or  subservient 
Speaker  became  offensive.  John  Randolph's  domination 
of  Speaker  Macon  provoked  a  motion  in  1806  to  restore 
the  ballot  system.  The  House  was  out  of  patience  with 
the  mischief-maker  and  it  came  within  two  votes  of 
depriving  the  Speaker  of  his  high  prerogative.1  The 
next  year,  after  Speaker  Varnum  had  dropped  Ran- 
dolph, a  similar  motion  met  with  overwhelming  defeat, 
showing  that  it  was  the  Virginian  and  not  the  method 
that  the  House  desired  to  abolish.2  The  resolution  to 
choose  by  lot  a  select  committee  to  investigate  the  Na- 
tional Bank  betrayed  a  similar  condition  in  1832.  By 
his  conspicuous  partiality  and  subserviency  Speaker 
Stevenson  had  become  obnoxious,  and  the  vote  to  de- 
prive him  of  the  right  of  framing  the  committee  stood, 
ayes,  100;  noes,  100.  Modesty  did  not  afflict  Stevenson, 
whose  casting  vote  saved  his  privilege.3  This  ended  the 
hope  of  limiting  the  Speaker's  authority  until  the  pro- 
longed and  violent  struggle  of  1849  encouraged  the  be- 
lief that  a  change  in  the  method  of  appointments  would 
prevent  such  passionate  contests,  and  with  this  in  view 
William  A.  Sackett,  of  New  York,  presented  a  resolution 
restoring  the  ballot  system.4  But  the  debate,  dropping 
into  personalities,  developed  such  an  astonishing  indif- 
ference that  the  controversy  slumbered  until  the  open- 
ing of  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  (1881). 

The  sudden  transfer  of  William  P.  Frye,  of  Maine, 
from  the  House  to  the  Senate  advertised  a  free-for-all 

1  The  vote  stood  42  to  44.  2  Ayes,  24;  noes,  87. 

8  22d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  2128. 
«  31st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  79-35. 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  77 

race  for  Speaker,  and  on  the  sixteenth  ballot,  by  the 
grace  of  a  Republican  faction  then  known  as  the  "  Stal- 
warts," J.  Warren  Keifer  won  the  nomination  at  a 
party  caucus.1  Of  his  six  competitors  all  received  desir- 
able chairmanships  except  Godlove  S.  Orth,  a  well- 
known  member  from  Indiana,  who,  with  two  exceptions, 
was  the  senior  in  service  of  all  his  party  colleagues. 
Orth  did  not  possess  those  parliamentary  talents  which 
cause  jealousy  or  excite  rivalry,  but  he  gave  strict  at- 
tention to  business  and  at  his  best  spoke  well.  He  natur- 
ally felt  that  long  experience  entitled  him  to  better 
recognition  than  he  received,  and  although  he  had  pre- 
viously approved  the  Speaker's  prerogative  of  appoint- 
ing committees,  he  now  voiced  his  resentment  by  boldly 
attacking  the  system  as  "  a  one-man  power  of  far-reach- 
ing influence."  Then  came  his  specifications.  "Not  only 
is  the  congressional  career  of  every  member  in  the  con- 
trol of  the  Speaker,  but  he  can  so  organize  a  committee 
as  to  imperil  the  country  itself."  2  This  ringing  chal- 
lenge preceded  his  presentation  of  a  substitute  for  a 
report  from  the  Committee  on  Rules,  the  resolution 
providing  for  the  selection  by  a  viva-voce  vote  of  eleven 
members  who  should  constitute  a  board  to  appoint 
committees.  This  did  not  prevent  party  control,  he 
said.  Caucus  action  could  select  eleven  persons,  not 
necessarily  excluding  the  Speaker,  who  could  be  openly 

1  On  the  final  ballot  the  votes  were  distributed  as  follows :  J.  Warren 
Keifer,  Ohio,  93;  Frank  Hiscock,  New  York,  18;  Thomas  B.  Reed, 
Maine,  11;  F.  A.  Kasson,  Iowa,  10;  Godlove  S.  Orth,  Ind.,  8;  M.  H. 
Dunnell,  Minn.,  3;  Julius  C.  Burrows,  Mich.,  1.  Total,  144.  Necessary 
to  a  choice,  73. 

2  47th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  463-64. 


78     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

elected  in  the  House  and  to  whom  party  interests  might 
safely  be  confided.  He  preferred,  however,  as  his  plan 
indicated,  that  each  party  select  five,  and  the  majority 
choose  the  eleventh,  who  should  act  as  chairman.  Such 
a  commission,  he  thought,  could  easily  constitute  the 
committees,  without  exceeding  the  time  usually  taken 
by  the  Speaker. 

Orth  knew  that  many  members  of  both  parties  re- 
garded with  suspicion  the  tremendous  power  of  such 
a  piece  of  patronage  as  committee  appointments.  For 
five  years  Speaker  Randall  had  ignored  Democrats 
who  stood  for  a  tariff  for  revenue  only,  while  the  gossip 
of  the  cloak-room  and  of  the  press  indicated  that  sev- 
eral Republicans,  resenting  Keifer's  method  of  securing 
votes  in  exchange  for  desirable  appointments,  were  ripe 
for  a  change.  It  encouraged  sedition,  too,  that  an  old 
member  headed  the  reform  movement.  Moreover,  the 
proposed  plan  was  new  and  simple.  Other  schemes  had 
required  separate  elections  by  ballot,  which  opened  the 
way  for  secret  combinations;  but  Orth's  proposition 
enabled  each  party,  by  caucus  or  otherwise,  to  select 
its  members,  and  approve  or  "elect"  them  by  a  viva- 
voce  vote  in  the  House.  Such  an  arrangement,  it  was 
said,  could  provoke  little  criticism. 

But  a  topic  so  sure  to  excite  the  spleen  of  the  Speaker 
and  his  beneficiaries  did  not  escape  the  skill  of  the  par- 
liamentarians, who,  quickly  raising  the  question  of  the 
substitute's  germaneness,  centered  discussion  on  its  par- 
liamentary status.  The  plan  proposed,  they  said,  might 
be  wholly  unobjectionable,  but  it  could  not  be  considered 
under  the  rules  at  that  time.  Nevertheless,  Thomas  B. 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  79 

Reed,  then  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  con- 
sidered the  matter  on  its  merits.  He  was  disposed  to 
treat  a  grumbler  with  severity,  and  in  disclosing  Orth's 
motive  he  declared  that  "personal  grievances  exist  in 
all  Houses  and  in  all  legislative  bodies."  In  ridicule  of 
the  plan  he  suggested  that  each  of  the  favored  eleven 
would  command  the  chairmanship  of  a  great  commit- 
tee and  encounter  double  the  pressure  applied  to  the 
Speaker.  "Think  of  the  log-rolling  to  secure  a  board 
favorable  to  the  measures  of  selfish  men!"  he  ex- 
claimed. Replying  to  the  intimation  that  the  personnel 
of  a  committee  could  imperil  the  country,  he  said:  "The 
Speaker  whose  committees  represent  the  wishes  of  the 
country  upon  matters  of  public  policy  is  not  only  under 
the  constant  supervision  of  public  opinion,  but  under 
the  supervision  of  this  House,  and  no  committee  is 
likely  to  be  constituted  or  endured  which  would  im- 
peril the  country's  interests.  But  for  the  wrongful  acts 
of  eleven  men  public  displeasure  could  rarely  find  a 
victim."  1 

Orth  was  ignorant  even  of  the  language  of  real  con- 
troversy, and  under  Reed's  sarcasm  he  wilted  into 
silence.  Nor  did  others  respond.  Distinguished  Demo- 
crats like  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  of  New  York,  Roger  Q. 
Mills  and  David  B.  Culberson,  of  Texas,  William  S. 
Holman,  of  Indiana,  and  William  R.  Morrison,  of  Illi- 
nois, were  ready  to  vote  for  a  change,  but  not  to  speak 
for  it,  and  so  the  discussion,  which  promised  much, 
ended  as  if  its  supporters  had  from  the  beginning  little 
faith  in  the  issue.  The  vote  was  equally  disappointing. 
1  47th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  465. 


80      THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Although  it  occurred  on  the  point  of  order,  it  expressed 
the  sentiment  of  the  House  on  the  Orth  proposition, 
74  favoring  it  out  of  a  total  of  236.  In  the  long  list  of 
those  opposed  clustered  the  names  of  the  real  leaders 
in  both  parties,  including  John  G.  Carlisle,  Thomas  B. 
Reed,  Hilary  A.  Herbert,  Joseph  G.  Cannon,  Samuel  J. 
Randall,  and  William  D.  Kelley.1 

But  even  this  Waterloo  did  not  stifle  all  protest. 
Keifer's  appointments  had  stirred  up  the  mud,  and 
William  M.  Springer,  of  Illinois,  resenting  their  partisan 
composition,  moved  that  a  minority  caucus  be  author- 
ized to  select  minority  members.2  Then  came  the  sug- 
gestion that  the  Senate's  method  of  appointments  be 
adopted.3  These  efforts  proved  futile.  Orth  offered  a 
resolution  that  the  Committee  on  Civil  Service  Reform 
be  instructed  to  report  on  the  expediency  of  providing 
a  different  system.  This  the  Committee  on  Rules 
quickly  pigeon-holed.4  Similar  ineffectual  attempts, 
initiated  during  the  administrations  of  Speakers  Car- 
lisle and  Crisp,5  made  it  plain  that  so  drastic  a  change 
needed  something  more  substantial  than  opposition 
based  on  personal  grievances,  and  so  the  system  con- 
tinued many  years  longer. 

Meantime  the  country  grew  more  and  more  into  a 
great  industrial  nation  with  "big  business"  and  "soul- 
less corporations,"  which  tended  to  eliminate  the  per- 

1  47th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  463-67  (January  17,  1882). 
The  vote  stood,  74  to  162;  not  voting,  56. 

2  47th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  338. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  320.  4  Ibid.,  Record,  p.  358. 

5  49th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  81;  52d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record, 
p.  22. 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  81 

sonal  element  between  employer  and  wage-earner.  Then 
began  what  has  been  called  "government  by  legisla- 
tion." Needed  reforms  in  railroad  administration  and 
equipment  found  expression  in  House  bills  and  reports, 
until  the  car-coupler,  the  locomotive  ash-pan,  and  a 
score  of  ingenious  devices  for  minimizing  accidents  and 
safeguarding  life  became  prominent  in  the  legislative 
work  of  Congress  under  the  broad  interpretation  of 
interstate  commerce.  Hundreds  of  measures  crowded 
committee  files,  each  proposing  a  new  panacea  for  every 
alleged  ill  or  wrong. 

Although  the  opinion  obtained  in  well-informed  leg- 
islative circles  that  all  measures  relating  to  changing 
economic  conditions  were  receiving  intelligent  consider- 
ation as  rapidly,  perhaps,  as  wisdom  justified  action, 
the  impression  spread  that  committees  should  become 
more  responsive  to  public  sentiment.  This  not  only 
revived  the  old  controversy  favorable  to  some  plan  of 
committee  selection  other  than  by  the  Speaker,  but 
turned  the  appeal  into  a  popular  issue.  It  was  not  a  cry 
of  individual  distress.  Personal  grievances  of  members 
were  merged  in  the  deeper  demand,  and  the  old  argu- 
ments that  had  done  service  for  a  century  found  many 
sympathetic  hearers  when  proclaimed  as  in  the  interest 
of  the  people.  Then  came  a  new  House,  organized 
by  the  Democrats  in  1911,  which  adopted  a  caucus- 
approved  rule  that  all  standing  committees  should  be 
elected.1 

The  procedure  under  this  rule  differed  little  from  the 
Orth  plan.  A  caucus  of  Democrats  selected  the  majority 
1  62d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Rule  x,  sec.  1. 


82     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

members  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  who 
acted  as  a  Board  or  Committee  of  Committees  in- 
choosing  the  majority  members  of  other  committees. 
To  eliminate  Reed's  objection  that  each  member  of  such 
a  body  would  appoint  himself  chairman  of  a  great  com- 
mittee, this  Board  adopted  a  rule  confining  its  mem- 
bership to  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  and  limit- 
ing the  assignment  of  other  members  to  one  important 
committee.  Moreover,  in  making  its  assignments  the 
Board  in  no  wise  departed  from  the  rules  which  formerly 
guided  the  Speaker.  Fitness,  experience,  and  geographi- 
cal location  were  recognized  as  well  as  the  long-estab- 
lished custom  of  promoting  older  members  and  placing 
at  the  head  of  each  committee  the  person  entitled  by 
long  service  to  the  chairmanship.  In  like  manner  it 
authorized  the  accepted  minority  leader  to  assign  places 
to  minority  members.  Indeed,  the  administration  of  the 
new  rule  made  no  perceptible  change  in  the  manner  of 
making  up  committees,  which,  when  finally  constructed, 
were  "elected"  by  receiving  the  formal  approval  of  a 
caucus  and  then  of  the  House.  Nevertheless,  the  work 
developed  grave  difficulties.  Satisfying  several  old 
members  and  some  new  ones  led  to  many  conferences 
which  disclosed  much  forboding  that  did  not  reach  the 
public;  but  it  is  well  known  that  serious  embarrassment, 
if  not  open  revolt,  was  avoided  by  materially  enlarging 
the  more  important  committees.  It  was  known,  too, 
that  in  committee  appointments  as  well  as  in  other 
matters  the  chairman  of  the  Board,  although  exhibiting 
rare  tact,  exercised  the  control  usually  exerted  by  the 
dominating  head  of  a  great  committee.  This  tendency 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  83 

to  hold  the  reins  became  especially  marked  at  the  open- 
ing session  of  the  Sixty-third  Congress,  indicating  that 
the  Speaker's  mantle  had  fallen  upon  the  shoulders  of 
the  masterful  chairman  of  Ways  and  Means.  Indeed, 
it  was  as  apparent  to  the  country  as  to  the  House 
itself  that  Oscar  W.  Underwood,  of  Alabama,  and  not 
Speaker  Champ  Clark,  of  Missouri,  held  the  baton  of 
command. 

Little  doubt  exists  in  the  minds  of  experienced  mem- 
bers that  several  of  the  recent  changes  curtailing  the 
Speaker's  power  are  advisable.  The  pressure  of  business 
justifies  the  elimination  of  the  Chair's  discretionary 
recognition,  and  no  serious  harm,  if  little  good,  can 
come  from  the  new  and  ingenious  device  which  allows 
members  an  opportunity  to  seek  the  discharge  of  a 
committee  from  the  further  consideration  of  a  bill.  But 
the  withdrawal  of  the  Speaker's  right  to  appoint  com- 
mittees may  well  be  regarded  as  tentative.  Such  sub- 
traction of  power  reduces  the  Speaker  simply  to  a  pre- 
siding officer,  charged  with  the  preservation  of  order, 
the  prevention  of  obstruction,  the  decision  of  points 
of  order  subject  to  appeal,  and  with  certain  perfunc- 
tory administrative  duties  heretofore  enumerated. 
Nothing  of  his  former  authority  is  left  him  except  his 
personality. 

A  great  Speaker  must  have  great  qualities  of  mind. 
He  must  be  just,  honest,  sympathetic,  courageous,  and 
quickly  responsive.  In  other  words,  his  mind  must  have 
the  quality  of  being  noble.  Henry  Clay  lives  unequalled 
among  Speakers  because  a  broad  nobility  of  mind  was 
permeated  and  controlled  by  great  common  sense. 


84     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Members  felt  themselves  in  contact  with  a  glorious 
personality  and  they  followed  him  with  enthusiasm. 
Other  Speakers  preceding  him,  notably  Sedgwick  and 
Macon,  had  endeavored  to  lead,  but  the  former  toiled 
in  vain  and  the  latter  failed  because  of  his  subserviency 
to  John  Randolph  and  the  President.  On  the  other 
hand,  Clay,  with  infinite  tact,  a  fearless  nature,  and 
abundant  self-confidence,  silenced  Randolph,  opposed 
Madison,  and  made  the  Speakership  second  only  to 
the  Presidency.  Whatever  the  rules  did  for  him,  his 
parliamentary  power  continued  secondary  to  his  per- 
sonal influence. 

What  Clay  did  as  Speaker  in  the  first  half  of  the  last 
century,  Thomas  B.  Reed  did  in  its  last  half.  He  had 
the  courage  to  suggest  parliamentary  remedies  and  the 
personal  force  to  apply  and  establish  them.  Men  recog- 
nized him  as  a  preeminently  able  leader,  with  Disraeli's 
gift  for  the  pungent  epigram,  the  vivid  repartee,  and 
the  rattling  attack,  and  while  he  lacked  the  tact  and 
perhaps  the  wisdom  of  Clay,  evidenced  by  the  disclosure 
of  prejudices  and  provincial  narrowness,  he  left  the 
Chair  a  legacy  of  power  which  bunglers  could  easily 
misuse  and  make  unpopular. 

Rules  alone  never  made  a  desirable  Speaker.  This  is 
abundantly  illustrated  by  James  K.  Polk,  who  preceded 
Hunter;  by  "the  three  Johns,"  who  preceded  Robert  C. 
Winthrop;  by  Linn  Boyd,  who  preceded  Banks;  by 
William  Pennington,  who  preceded  Grow;  and  by  sev- 
eral others  who  succeeded  in  missing  the  career  even  of 
average  statesmen.  But  personality  alone  cannot  carry 
a  Speaker  safely  through  the  vicissitudes  of  a  stormy 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  85 

administration.  The  ablest  occupants  of  the  chair, 
apart  from  character,  experience,  and  reputation,  needed 
a  real  authority,  derived  directly  from  the  rules,  to 
enable  them  to  assimilate  different  shades  of  feeling  in 
the  party  and  to  keep  their  forces  intact  throughout  a 
Congress.  The  scope  of  this  power  resembles  that  of  an 
English  Premier,  whose  authority  to  appoint  the  min- 
istry and  to  bestow  the  Crown's  ecclesiastical  offices 
tends  to  increase  the  number  of  his  followers  and  to 
give  him  a  stronger  hold  upon  the  House  of  Commons. 
Although  a  Speaker's  power  has  never  been  so  visible 
as  that  of  an  English  Premier,  it  has  occasionally  con- 
tributed surprising  strength  to  national  policies  and 
parliamentary  reforms.  Clay  used  it  with  conspicuous 
advantage  during  the  War  of  1812.  In  1876  it  gave 
vigor  to  the  administration  of  Randall,  who  deemed  it 
politically  inadvisable  to  adopt  at  that  time  a  tariff 
policy  in  harmony  with  the  traditions  of  his  party. 
Carlisle  believed  in  a  tariff  for  revenue  only,  and  for  six 
years  maintained  the  principle  as  masterfully  as  Sir 
Robert  Peel  engineered  the  abolition  of  the  corn  duties. 
Had  the  organization  of  the  House  in  the  Fifty-first 
Congress  depended  upon  a  Committee  of  Committees, 
Speaker  Reed  could  never  have  marshaled  sufficient 
strength  to  establish  the  needed  reforms  that  distin- 
guished his  administration. 

But  the  need  of  a  virile  Speaker  is  often  even  more 
far-reaching.  A  congressional  election  in  an  "off-year" 
ordinarily  turns  upon  issues  growing  out  of  the  Adminis- 
tration's policy,  and  it  is  the  people's  opportunity  to 
approve  or  disapprove.  If  they  approve,  the  majority 


86     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

of  the  House  usually  continues  in  harmony  with  it;  if 
they  disapprove,  the  political  status  changes  and  the 
new  Speaker  represents  the  dominating  sentiment  of 
the  country.  This  was  the  intention  of  the  Fathers. 
Under  their  political  system  a  new  Ministry  could  not 
be  substituted  as  in  England,  but  the  activities  of  a 
repudiated  President  could  be  halted.  As  in  the  Brit- 
ish House,  however,  it  sometimes  occurs  that  a  deci- 
sive or  united  majority  is  not  returned,  in  which  event 
it  is  necessary,  before  a  Speaker  can  be  elected,  to  fuse 
the  different  factions.  This  happened  in  1854  when  the 
congressional  elections  exhibited  a  bitter  hostility  to  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise;  but  upon  the  as- 
sembling of  a  new  Congress  neither  party  possessed  a 
majority.  Anti-Nebraska  members,  made  up  of  Whigs, 
Know-nothings,  Americans,  and  Republicans,  found  it 
difficult  to  assimilate,  while  pro-slavery  Americans  did 
not  easily  unite  with  the  disciples  of  Calhoun. 

It  was  no  secret  that  the  formation  of  committees 
prevented  a  fusion.  Giddings  demanded  a  majority  of 
the  friends  of  freedom.  Other  factions,  no  less  insistent 
upon  their  peculiar  views,  found  no  common  ground, 
while  members  of  each  group  pressed  their  individual 
claims.  It  was  impossible  to  select  a  Committee  of 
Committees,  which  suggested  combinations  of  cunning 
leaders.  Suspicion  likewise  tainted  the  personnel  of 
every  tentative  committee  submitted.  Thus,  for  eight 
weeks  the  conflict  seemed  likely  never  to  end  until  the 
fitness  of  William  Aiken,  of  South  Carolina,  and  Na- 
thaniel P.  Banks,  of  Massachusetts,  seemed  to  measure 
up  to  the  Clay  standard:  "Promptitude  and  impartial- 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  87 

ity  in  deciding  questions  of  order;  firmness  and  dignity 
in  his  deportment  toward  the  House;  patience,  good 
temper,  and  courtesy  toward  individual  members;  the 
best  distribution  of  the  talent  of  the  House  in  its  num- 
erous subdivisions  for  the  despatch  of  public  business; 
and  the  fair  exhibition  of  every  subject  presented  for 
consideration."  1  In  other  words,  Clay  lifted  duty  above 
party,  and  the  more  members  studied  the  character  of 
Aiken  and  Banks  the  more  suspicion  became  disarmed. 
Meantime  discussion  concentrated  the  public  mind  on 
the  slavery  question,  forcing  members  into  the  open 
and  compelling  candidates  to  define  their  position. 
Finally,  when  each  member  had  settled  the  problem  for 
himself,  the  House,  on  the  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
third  ballot,  elected  Banks  by  100  to  103.2 

It  was  a  stupendous  victory.  Banks  stood  for  the 
triumph  of  a  great  moral  issue,  and  under  the  preroga- 
tives of  a  full-armed  Speaker  he  could  defeat  obnoxious 
legislation  of  the  Pierce-Douglas  type.  The  country 
then  for  the  first  time  fully  appreciated  the  wisdom  of 
the  Fathers  in  clothing  the  office  with  power. 

In  December,  1859,  at  the  opening  of  the  Thirty- 
sixth  Congress,  a  still  greater  crisis  faced  the  American 
people.  The  conflict  was  as  long  and  the  vote  as  close 
as  in  1855,  but  in  violence  it  far  exceeded  that  contest, 
for  in  four  years  disagreements  between  the  North  and 
the  South  had  grown  into  strong  antagonism.  Threats 
of  disunion  which  formerly  excited  laughter  now  became 
too  serious  to  be  treated  as  bravado,  while  tlie  courtesy 

1  18th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  8. 
1  34th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  67. 


88     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

that  characterized  the  preceding  struggle  gave  way  to 
passionate  bitterness.  According  to  Senator  Grimes,  of 
Iowa,  and  Senator  Hammond,  of  South  Carolina,  mem- 
bers on  both  sides  were  armed  with  deadly  weapons.1 
Moreover,  the  tense  feeling  in  the  House  extended  to 
the  country.  Even  the  candidacy  of  John  Sherman  for 
Speaker  put  his  brother,  afterward  the  famous  General, 
then  at  the  head  of  a  military  school  in  Louisiana,  under 
suspicion  of  being  an  Abolitionist.2 

The  presence  of  four  parties  complicated  the  situation 
as  it  did  in  1855.  Sherman,  the  choice  of  the  Republi- 
cans, could  not  secure  the  support  of  all  the  anti- 
Lecompton  members,  nor  were  the  Democrats  able  to 
unite  all  the  Southern  Americans.  On  the  twenty-fifth 
ballot  Sherman  came  within  three  votes  of  election,  and 
three  weeks  later  William  N.  H.  Smith,  an  American 
from  North  Carolina,  encountered  a  similar  experience. 
But  neither  side  was  encouraged  by  the  recurrence 
of  such  flattering  support,  and  on  February  1,  eight 
weeks  after  the  contest  began,  the  Republicans  pre- 
sented William  Pennington,  of  New  Jersey,  then  serving 
his  first  and  only  term  in  the  House.  Pennington  was 
colorless.  He  had  said  nothing  and  done  nothing  which 
could  in  any  wise  involve  him  in  the  controversy.  Al- 
though a  man  of  dignity  and  poise,  who  possessed 
Christian  meekness  and  political  integrity,  with  a  de- 
sire to  be  fair  and  just,  his  ignorance  of  parliamentary 
practice  and  lack  of  political  management  emphasized 

1  William  Salter,  Life  of  James  W.  Grimes,  p.  121;  Lewis  Harley, 
Life  of  Francis  Lieber,  p.  310. 
*  W.  T.  Sherman,  Memoirs,  vol.  I,  p.  148. 


COMMITTEE  APPOINTMENTS  89 

his  unfitness  to  direct  the  House  at  a  time  of  such  ex- 
citement. But  his  ability  to  organize  the  House  in  oppo- 
sition to  President  Buchanan,  who  evinced  the  servility 
of  Pierce,  satisfied  his  party,  while  the  absence  of  a 
public  record  commended  him  to  anti-Lecompton  Dem- 
ocrats and  anti-Slavery  Americans,  who  recognized  the 
gravity  of  the  situation.  Indeed,  all  were  anxious  to 
get  a  Speaker  without  a  bloody  affray  on  the  floor  of 
the  House,  and  on  the  fourth  ballot  of  the  day  and 
the  forty-fourth  of  the  session,  Pennington  secured  the 
three  votes  withheld  from  Sherman,  making  one  hun- 
dred and  seventeen,  the  number  necessary  to  elect.1  Of 
the  three  votes  thus  added,  one  was  that  of  Henry  Win- 
ter Davis,  the  brilliant  and  caustic  orator  from  Mary- 
land, who  aided  in  the  organization  of  the  American 
party  and  had  declined  to  vote  for  Banks  in  1855.  No 
one  in  the  North,  at  least,  then  thought  the  Speaker 
represented  too  much  power  save  Clement  L.  Vallan- 
digham,  of  Ohio,  whose  sympathies  were  not  hidden 
under  a  bushel.  "Your  Speaker,  whatever  his  natural 
disposition  may  be,"  he  declared,  "is,  by  the  neces- 
sities of  his  office,  a  despot."  Yet  it  did  not  occur  to 
Vallandigham  that  Speaker  Orr,  of  South  Carolina,  who 
enforced  rules  similar  to  those  used  by  Pennington,  was 
a  "despot." 

When  the  power  of  appointing  committees  is  vested 
in  the  Speaker,  responsibility  is  concentrated  and  lo- 
cated —  not  scattered  and  made  impossible  of  loca- 
tion. Besides,  no  one  is  so  much  interested  in  the 
success  of  his  party  and  of  his  administration  as  is 
1  36th  Cong.,  1st  Sess..  Journal,  pp.  163-64. 


90     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

the  Speaker.  To  use  Reed's  expression,  "What  he  does, 
he  does  in  the  open."  After  four  years  of  testing  out 
a  Committee  of  Committees,  the  opinion  of  the  most 
prominent  members  on  both  sides  of  the  House,  al- 
though perhaps  not  publicly  expressed,  is,  that  it  is  a 
failure. 


CHAPTER  VI 

OTHER   OFFICERS  AND  THE   WHIP 

AT  the  beginning  of  each  Congress  the  House,  in  ad- 
dition to  a  Speaker,  chooses  a  clerk,  a  sergeant-at-arms, 
a  doorkeeper,  a  postmaster,  and  a  chaplain,  who  re- 
main in  office  until  the  qualification  of  their  successors. 
These  officers  were  elected  by  ballot  until  the  substitu- 
tion of  a  viva-voce  vote  in  1839.  Since  1865  the  custom 
has  obtained  of  adopting  a  single  resolution  containing 
their  names.  Although  this  time-saving  method  is  sub- 
ject to  objection,  unanimous  consent  is  rarely  if  ever 
withheld. 

In  1789,  after  choosing  a  Speaker,  the  House,  with- 
out preliminary  authority,  elected  a  clerk,  a  title  con- 
forming to  that  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Beyond 
certain  routine  duties,  however,  the  two  officers  bear 
slight  resemblance.  The  British  clerk  is  a  non-partisan. 
He  is  appointed  by  the  Crown  on  the  nomination  of  the 
Prime  Minister,  and  holds  office  for  life.  He  attends 
sittings  only  when  the  Speaker  is  in  the  chair,  but  he 
certifies  all  legislation  and  signifies  the  Crown's  assent. 
The  clerk  of  the  American  House,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
a  partisan,  representing  the  dominant  party,  and  serves 
only  for  two  years  unless  reflected.  Moreover,  his  duties 
continue  in  the  Speaker's  absence.  Nevertheless,  the 
office  is  one  of  great  dignity  and  responsibility,  and 
has  often  been  held  for  long  periods  by  men  of  recog- 


92     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

nized  ability.  In  1822  no  less  a  person  than  John  W. 
Taylor,  of  New  York,  who  had  served  one  term  as 
Speaker,  thought  seriously  of  resigning  to  accept  it. 
Its  permanency  probably  incited  his  desire,  since  New 
York  was  then  and  for  many  years  afterward  the  most 
fickle  State  in  the  distribution  of  its  popular  suffrage. 
Upon  the  advice  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  then  Secretary 
of  State,  Taylor  remained  in  Congress,  serving  ten 
years  longer  and  a  second  term  as  Speaker.  The  inci- 
dent, however,  shows  that  from  the  first  the  high  char- 
acter of  the  office  made  it  attractive  to  the  ablest  men 
in  public  life. 

The  clerk,  in  the  performance  of  his  routine  duties, 
keeps  the  Journal,  refers  private  bills,  assigns  bills  and 
committee  reports  to  the  various  calendars,  affixes  the 
seal  of  the  House  to  writs,  warrants,  and  subpoenas, 
adjusts  the  stationery  accounts  of  members,  certifies  to 
the  Senate  the  passage  of  bills  and  resolutions,  contracts 
for  labor  and  supplies,  pays  officers  and  employees  of 
the  House,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  Speaker  certifies 
the  compensation  of  members.  After  the  final  adjourn- 
ment of  a  Congress  he  collects  from  the  several  com- 
mittees all  bills,  resolutions,  and  other  papers  not  re- 
ported to  the  House.  He  must  also  take  certified  copies 
of  papers  withdrawn  from  the  files  by  order  of  the 
House,  and  deposit  with  the  Librarian  of  Congress  such 
bound  volumes  of  original  papers  as  are  not  needed  in 
his  files.  At  present  (1915)  he  appoints  about  fifty  em- 
ployees, with  salaries  aggregating  $100,000,  and  dis- 
burses a  contingent  fund  of  double  or  triple  that 
amount.  He  receives  a  salary  of  $6500  and  ten  cents 


\ 


OTHER  OFFICERS  AND  THE  WHIP      93 

per  hundred  words  for  certified  extracts  from  the 
Journal. 

The  clerk's  prestige,  however,  comes  from  his  au- 
thority, preceding  the  assembling  of  a  new  Congress,  to 
prepare  a  roll  of  members  elect.  This  high  prerogative 
adds  a  judicial  function  to  his  duties.  It  requires  him 
to  examine  the  credentials  of  members,  and  in  ascertain- 
ing their  correctness  he  may  study  election  returns,  in- 
vestigate contested  cases,  and  institute  an  inquiry  into 
complaints  and  alleged  irregularities.  This  opens  the 
door  to  great  temptation,  for,  as  elsewhere  stated,  he  may 
omit  from  the  list  the  name  of  any  member,  the  regu- 
larity of  whose  election  he  questions.  In  other  words, 
he  can,  if  so  disposed,  refuse  to  recognize  a  sufficient 
number  of  credentials  because  of  technical  errors  or 
spurious  contests  to  give  his  party  a  majority  of  those 
privileged  to  participate  in  the  election  of  a  Speaker. 
Although  such  a  betrayal  of  trust  has  occurred  but 
once,  it  is  possible  whenever  a  small  margin  exists  be- 
tween opposing  parties.  For  this  reason,  if  for  no  other, 
the  life  tenure  of  the  British  clerk  is  preferable,  since  it 
tends  to  eliminate  partisanship. 

The  clerk  also  presides  at  the  election  of  a  Speaker. 
The  British  clerk  never  presumes  to  do  this.  Indeed,  he 
may  not  officially  address  a  member  either  by  his  own 
name  or  by  that  of  his  constituency.  At  the  selection 
of  a  Speaker  at  the  beginning  of  a  new  Parliament  he 
simply  directs  the  proceeding  in  a  pantomimic  manner, 
dumbly  pointing  his  forefinger  at  the  member  who  is  to 
submit  the  resolution  indicating  the  majority's  choice. 
Thereupon  the  member  so  signaled  announces  the  name 


94     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

with  an  appropriate  speech,  after  which  the  resolution, 
being  seconded  with  further  remarks,  is  adopted.  The 
Speaker  elect,  having  acknowledged  the  honor,  then 
takes  the  arm  of  his  proposer  and  seconder,  and  makes 
his  way  to  the  chair.  The  American  clerk,  on  the  other 
hand,  promptly  at  the  noon  hour  brings  the  House  to 
order  and  begins  calling  the  roll.  Meantime,  he  may 
refuse  to  answer  questions  or  put  a  motion  except  one 
to  adjourn,  and  since  no  appeal  lies  from  his  decisions 
while  the  House  is  thus  unorganized,  only  those  whose 
names  are  upon  his  list  can  vote  for  Speaker.  Thus  for 
the  moment  he  possesses,  perhaps,  the  most  exceptional 
power  of  any  public  official.1 

The  sergeant^al^arms  maintains  order.  He  acts  under 
the  direction  of  the  Speaker,  the  chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  and,  pending  the  election  of  a 
Speaker,  under  the  orders  of  the  clerk.  At  such  times 
he  must  bear  the  mace,  the  symbol  of  his  office.  On  a 
call  of  the  House  he  is  required  to  detain  members  pres- 
ent and  to  return  absentees.  In  conjunction  with  the 
sergeant-at-arms  of  the  Senate  he  appoints  the  Capitol 
police,  a  body  of  thirty-six  men,  who  possess  the  power 
of  arrest  and  may  be  summoned  to  the  floor  of  the 
House.  He  also  appoints  an  auxiliary  force  of  eleven 
policemen  to  care  for  the  House  office  building.  Addi- 
tional to  these  duties  he  executes  all  processes  author- 
ized by  the  House,  prepares  the  roll  of  members  elect 
in  the  absence  of  the  clerk,  and  pays  members  their 
mileage  and  salaries.  In  the  performance  of  this  latter 
service  he  may,  under  the  Act  of  1856,  deduct  a  day's 
1  See  chap,  n,  p.  12. 


OTHER  OFFICERS  AND  THE  WHIP      95 

salary  for  each  day's  unexcused  absence,  although  with 
one  exception  no  record  exists  that  he  ever  did  so.1 
For  the  purpose  of  maintaining  a  quorum  he  once  cir- 
cularized the  House,  requesting  members  to  certify  such 
absence,  and  Speaker  Crisp  ruled  that,  being  a  disburs- 
ing officer  under  bond,  the  sergeant-at-arms  could  en- 
force all  reasonable  regulations  before  making  pay- 
ments, adding,  "and  the  Chair  will  not  certify  the  pay 
of  any  member  unless  he  first  furnishes  the  information 
required." 2  Following  this  announcement  Speaker 
Crisp  refused  to  certify  the  pay  of  any  member  who 
failed  to  file  a  certificate  showing  the  days  of  his  at- 
tendance and  absence  during  the  preceding  month;  or 
to  certify  pay  for  absent  days  unless  the  result  of  the 
member's  sickness  or  of  sickness  in  his  family.  Many 
conscientious  members  at  this  time  suffered  abatement 
of  pay,  although  it  was  facetiously  remarked  that  an 
epidemic  of  sickness  existed  in  the  House.  Toward  the 
end  of  the  session  a  resolution  authorizing  a  refund  to 
members  who  had  been  docked  failed  of  passage.  In 
\the  Sixty-third  Congress  the  House  instructed  the  ser- 
geant-at-arms to  deduct  the  pay  of  members  for  each 
nay  of  absence,  but  prior  to  adjournment  it  recon- 
sidered the  resolution  and  ordered  a  return  of  the  sal- 
ary. The  sergeant-at-arms  gives  a  bond  for  $50,000, 
employs  eight  assistants  with  salaries  aggregating 
$16,000,  and  submits  a  statement  of  his  receipts  and 
disbursements  at  the  close  of  each  regular  session.  He 
receives  a  salary  of  $6500. 

1  Sec.  40,  Act  of  August  18,  1856.1 

2  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Journal,  pp.  358-59. 


96     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

The  duties  of  the  doorkeeper^  are  not  less  varied  and 
exacting.  Besides  guarding  the  chamber  and  keeping 
unprivileged  persons  from  the  floor,  he  controls  the  docu- 
ment room  containing  printed  bills,  resolutions,  and  re- 
ports for  the  immediate  use  of  members,  and  supervises 
the  folding-room  where  public  documents  are  wrapped 
and  mailed.  Janitors,  page  boys,  and  messengers,  in- 
cluding those  on  the  soldiers'  roll,  also  come  under  his 
direction.  To  his  charge  is  likewise  committed  the 
care  of  rooms  and  the  custody  of  all  property,  books, 
and  papers  belonging  to  the  House.  Admission  to  the 
floor,  delivery  of  calling  cards  to  members,  and  the 
responsibility  of  handling  thousands  of  visitors  who 
daily  throng  the  galleries  and  corridors,  also  belong 
among  the  more  serious  duties  of  the  doorkeeper.  Their 
acceptable  performance,  without  mistakes  and  without 
friction,  is  evidence  of  a  well-disciplined  force  of  assist- 
ants. Quick  and  courteous  recognition  of  persons  en- 
titled to  the  floor  requires  tact  and  vigilance.  Among 
the  privileged  ones  are  the  President,  Vice-President, 
justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  cabinet  officers,  foreign 
ministers,  governors  of  States,  senators,  former  mem- 
bers of  the  House,  and  those  who  have  received  the 
thanks  of  Congress.  Each  is  expected  upon  his  appear- 
ance at  the  door  to  present  the  Speaker's  card,  but  an 
experienced  officer  would  blush  to  stop  a  privileged 
stranger  the  second  time.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  door- 
keeper, also,  to  introduce  messengers  from  the  President 
and  the  Senate,  and,  in  the  absence  of  the  clerk  and 
sergeant-at-arms,  to  make  up  the  roll  of  members  elect 
and  preside  at  the  organization  of  a  new  House.  Upon 


OTHER  OFFICERS  AND  THE  WHIP      97 

his  pay-roll  are  carried  (1915)  140  employees,  whose  pay 
aggregates  $160,000.  His  own  salary  is  $5000. 

Originally  the  doorkeeper  had  charge  of  the  post- 
office,  established  in  1802.  So  rapidly  did  the  mail  in- 
crease, however,  that  in  1814  the  House  authorized  the 
appointment  of  a  postmaster,  who  became  an  elective 
officer  in  1838.  At  present  (1915)  he  employs  twenty- 
two  assistants,  with  salaries  aggregating  $30,000.  His 
own  salary  is  $4000. 

The  four  officers  named  above  are  required  to  certify 
each  month  to  their  respective  pay-rolls,  stating  who 
have  performed  duty  and  the  reason  for  the  absence  of 
those  also  paid.  The  enforcement  of  this  act  falls  upon 
the  Committee  on  Accounts,  whose  approval  of  the 
expenses  legally  chargeable  to  the  contingent  fund  of 
the  House  is  conclusive  upon  all  departments  of  the 
Government.  This  committee,  subject  to  the  approval 
of  the  House,  also  determines  the  number  of  employees 
and  fixes  their  compensation. 

In  round  numbers  the  House  employs  350  clerks  and 
other  employees,  exclusive  of  clerks  to  members,  but 
instead  of  selecting  them  by  a  civil-service  examination 
and  retaining  them  during  good  behavior,  as  with  other 
government  appointees,  the  House,  with  the  exception 
of  its  librarians,  reporters,  and  veterans  on  the  soldiers' 
roll,1  continues  the  discredited  spoils  system.  Thus,  at 
every  party  change  ignorance  displaces  efficiency  and 
experts  give  way  to  blunderers.  The  error  of  such  a 

1  Fourteen  messengers  on  the  soldiers'  roll,  under  the  control  of 
the  doorkeeper,  at  a  salary  of  $1200  each,  are  not  removable  except 
for  cause,  with  the  approval  of  the  House.  23  Stat.  L.  pp.  164,  393. 


98     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

system  is  daily  disclosed  by  comparing  the  shiftless 
manner  in  which  the  business  of  the  House  is  often 
transacted  with  the  intelligent  work  of  James  C.  Courts, 
who  has  fortunately  remained  clerk  of  the  Committee 
on  Appropriations  for  upward  of  thirty-five  years.  He 
is  an  ideal  illustration  of  the  great  helpfulness  of  one 
permitted  to  survive  party  changes. 

The  House  librarian  and  his  assistants  are  appointed 
by  the  clerK,  with  the  approval  of  the  Speaker,  and  can- 
not be  removed  except  "for  cause"  approved  by  the 
Committee  on  Rules.  The  House  library,  consisting 
chiefly  of  volumes  of  statutes,  court  and  committee  re- 
ports, journals  of  the  two  Houses,  and  the  debates  of 
Congress,  is  a  subdivision  of  the  Library  of  Congress,  the 
librarian  of  which  is  appointed  by  the  President,  with 
the  approval  of  the  Senate.  The  Library  of  Congress, 
however,  is  under  the  exclusive  supervision  of  the  Joint 
Committee  on  the  Library. 

T^he  chaplain  opens  each  day's  session  with  prayer, 
for  which  he  receives  a  salary  of  $1200.  It  is  not  stipu- 
lated that  prayers  be  short,  or  that  members  stand 
during  the  service,  but  brevity  and  reverence  are  usually 
observed.  Originally  the  chaplain  was  not  an  official  of 
the  House.  A  concurrent  resolution  named  two  clergy- 
men of  different  denominations,  who,  interchanging 
weekly,  supplied  the  Senate  and  House.  The  prolonged 
Speakership  contest  in  1855  interrupted  this  custom, 
the  House  meantime  employing  local  ministers.  Their 
prayers,  it  seems,  too  often  evinced  something  of  the 
partisan  spirit  that  characterized  the  pending  contro- 
versy, and  in  the  following  Congress  (1857)  certain 


OTHER  OFFICERS  AND  THE  WHIP     99 

members  who  claimed  that  the  employment  of  chap- 
lains conflicted  with  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  and 
tended  to  promote  a  union  of  Church  and  State,  made 
a  determined  effort  to  discontinue  their  use.    This 
aroused  the  churches  of  the  country,  and  at  the  end  of 
an  acrimonious  debate  the  House,  by  an  overwhelming 
majority,  adopted  the  following  resolution:  "Whereas 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  from  their  earliest 
history  to  the  present  time,  have  been  led  by  the  hand 
of  a  kind  Providence  and  are  indebted  for  the  countless 
blessings  of  the  past  and  the  present  and  dependent  for 
continued  prosperity  in  the  future  upon  Almighty  God; 
and  whereas  the  great  vital  and  conservative  element 
in  our  system  is  the  belief  of  our  people  in  the  pure 
doctrines  and  divine  truths  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  it  eminently  becomes  the  representatives  of  a 
people  so  highly  favored  to  acknowledge  in  the  most 
public  manner  their  reverence  for  God:  Therefore,  be 
it  resolved,  that  the  daily  sessions  of  this  body  be  opened 
with  prayer,  and  that  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  this 
city  are  hereby  requested  to  attend  and  alternately 
perform  this  solemn  duty."  1    The  adoption  of  this 
creed  forever  crushed  objection  to  the  presence  of  a 
chaplain.  Nevertheless,  his  status  remained  unfixed.  It 
was  objected  that  neither  the  Constitution  nor  the  law 
recognized  such  an  officer,  and  not  until  the  payment 
of  his  salary  depended  upon  his  taking  the  ironclad 
oath,  adopted  in  1862,  did  his  official  character  become 
established. 

It  is  creditable  to  the  House  that  it  has  always  ob- 
1  35th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  25,  26. 


100    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

served  Sunday.  An  adjournment  on  Saturday  carries 
until  Monday,  and  a  recess  for  three  days,  authorized 
by  the  Constitution,  excludes  Sunday.  A  Sunday's  ses- 
sion is  held  only  by  special  order,  and  although  the 
House  may  at  such  times,  if  it  so  decides,  transact 
general  business,  it  is  usually  confined  to  eulogies  of 
deceased  members. 

Respect  for  public  opinion  has  also  been  shown  in  a 
continuous  effort  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  liquor  within  the 
limits  of  the  Capitol.  Until  1837  liquor  was  sold  without 
question,  but  under  the  influence  of  the  Washingtonian 
movement  it  was  prohibited.  The  rule,  however,  proved 
imperfect,  and  the  traffic,  under  severe  restrictions,  con- 
tinued until  1867,  when  it  was  again  prohibited.  There- 
upon the  restauranteur  surrendered  his  contract  and  the 
restaurant  passed  under  the  control  of  the  Committee 
on  Public  Buildings  and  Grounds.  Nevertheless,  the 
determination  to  extirpate  the  sale  of  liquor  under  any 
conditions,  however  restrictive,  strengthened  with  the 
growing  temperance  sentiment,  and  in  1903,  without 
debate  or  a  division,  the  Act  of  March  3  was  passed 
absolutely  prohibiting  it.1 

Reporters  of  the  official  proceedings,  now  six  in  num- 
ber, are  also  officers  of  the  House.  They  are  appointed 
by  the  Speaker,  receive  a  salary  of  $5000  per  annum, 
and  may  be  removed  only  for  cause.  The  present  system 
of  reporting  debates  was  of  slow  growth.  Originally  the 
House  made  no  provision  for  such  work.  As  the  Journal 
contained  all  the  official  proceedings,  including  the  yeas 
and  nays,  members  did  not  then  see  any  necessity  for 
1  32d  Stat.  L.,  p.  1221. 


OTHER  OFFICERS  AND  THE  WHIP    101 

printing  what  was  said,  and  accordingly  such  brief  ab- 
stracts of  the  early  debates  as  now  exist  in  the  Annals  of 
Congress  and  the  Congressional  Debates  were  supplied 
largely  by  newspaper  reporters,  who  published  only 
what  seemed  to  them  important.1  These  reports  oc- 
casioned much  complaint.  They  were  characterized  as 
incorrect  and  often  offensively  partisan,  with  argu- 
ments favorable  to  the  newspaper  side  fully  set  out, 
and  those  adverse  maimed,  misstated,  and  confused. 
Moreover,  the  dull  or  inconspicuous  member  rarely  got 
a  line.  To  secure  accuracy  and  impartiality,  therefore, 
propositions  were  submitted  to  place  reporters  under 
oath,  to  make  admittance  to  the  floor  dependent  upon 
their  "decorum  and  respect  to  members,"  and  to  pay 
for  the  publication  of  correct  reports.  The  House 
thought  it  inadvisable  to  assist  financially  unofficial 
publications,  but  in  order  to  check  rnisreports  by  fixing 
responsibility,  it  authorized  (1811)  the  Speaker  to  assign 
press  reporters  to  places  on  the  floor.  This  led  to  charges 
of  political  favoritism,  some  being  admitted  and  others 
excluded.  It  was  noted,  however,  that  the  assumption 
of  some  authority  improved  the  character  of  the  re- 
ports. 

A  further  improvement  followed  the  custom,  which 
began  some  time  before  the  establishment  of  the  Con- 
gressional Globe  (1833),  of  paying  the  publisher  for  a 

1  The  Annals  of  Congress,  in  42  volumes,  extend  from  the  First 
Congress  through  the  first  session  of  the  Eighteenth,  1789-1824;  the 
Congressional  Debates,  in  29  volumes,  from  the  second  session  of  the 
Eighteenth  Congress  to  the  Twenty-fifth,  1824-39;  the  Congressional 
Globe,  in  108  volumes,  from  the  Twenty-third  to  the  Forty-second 
Congress,  1833-73;  the  Congressional  Record,  in  335  volumes,  from  the 
Forty-third  to  the  Sixty-third  Congress,  1873-1915. 


102;    TEE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

certain  amount  of  space.  This  arrangement  not  only 
increased  the  number  of  volumes  per  session,1  but 
whetted  the  desire  to  employ  a  corps  of  paid  stenog- 
raphers to  report  everything  done  and  said.  Although 
this  ambitious  plan  to  exploit  the  speech  of  members 
was  successfully  opposed  for  many  years,  three  Globe 
reporters  finally  obtained  fixed  seats  in  front  of  the 
clerk's  desk  (1851),  and  four  years  later  were  paid  by 
the  House.  Then  came  the  Government  Printing-Office 
(1860),  and  the  system,  begun  in  1863,  of  making  annual 
appropriations  to  cover  the  publication  of  debates.  This 
quickly  turned  the  Globe  into  a  daily,  freighted  with 
forty  columns  of  proceedings,  which  doubled  the  number 
of  volumes  formerly  published  each  year.  About  this 
time,  too  (1865),  appeared  a  proposition  authorizing  the 
Government  Printing-Office  to  publish  the  reports  and 
the  Speaker  to  appoint  the  reporters,  making  them 
officers  of  the  House.  But  it  did  not  become  a  law  until 
1872,  the  statute  then  recognizing  five  official  reporters, 
for  whose  use  a  room  was  set  apart. 

The  next  year  (1873)  the  Congressional  Record  had  its 
birth.  To  have  every  spoken  word  recorded  by  their 
own  reporters  had  long  been  the  dream  of  parliamentary 
leaders.  It  would  give  the  House,  they  said,  absolute 
control  of  its  proceedings,  crystallize  its  procedure,  keep 
business  from  drifting,  prevent  members  from  dupli- 
cating arguments,  and  hold  them  responsible  for  their 
language.  Reporters,  too,  would  more  loyally  serve  the 
House,  their  notes  would  become  its  property,  and  their 

1  Twenty-nine  volumes  of  Debates  were  issued  in  twelve  years, 
against  twenty  volumes  of  Annals  in  the  preceding  twelve  years. 


OTHER  OFFICERS  AND  THE  WHIP    103 

hours  of  work  subject  to  its  convenience.  To  some 
extent  these  benefits  have  been  realized.  In  other  re- 
spects, however,  the  Record  is  an  imperfect  mirror.  It 
was  intended  to  contain  a  full  stenographic  report  of 
each  day's  doings,  but  bills,  even  if  read  in  full,  are 
seldom  published,  and  often  only  the  substance  of  reso- 
lutions and  other  propositions  offered  by  members.  So, 
in  revising  remarks,  language  may  be  added,  modified, 
or  left  out,  although  not  to  affect  the  import  of  words 
spoken  by  another  without  his  consent.  Nor  do  words 
appear  if  spoken  by  a  member  after  being  called  to 
order.  On  the  other  hand,  "leave  to  print,"  first  re- 
stricted to  individual  requests  and  subsequently  ex- 
tended to  a  "general  leave"  to  continue  for  several 
days  after  debate  on  a  bill  is  closed,  lets  in  hundreds  of 
speeches  never  delivered.  By  unanimous  consent  leave 
to  extend  one's  remarks  may  even  be  secured  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole.  This  explains  why  speeches  of 
half  a  dozen  pages  are  often  interjected  into  a  five- 
minute  debate.  Similar  surprises  often  appear  when  the 
forty  minutes  allowed  after  adopting  the  previous  ques- 
tion is  divided  among  twenty  speakers,  each  given  two 
minutes  "with  leave  to  extend  their  remarks."  Thus 
the  Record  presents  not  what  is  really  said  and  done  on 
the  floor,  but  what  members  and  the  House  please  to 
have  printed.  Sharp,  personal  controversies  which  spice 
debate  and  furnish  racy  reading  too  often  disappear, 
while  thousands  of  pages  are  devoted  to  wearisome  re- 
marks never  spoken.  The  custom  of  granting  "  leave  to 
print"  has  contributed  to  the  publication  of  three  times 
as  many  volumes  of  the  Record  in  the  past  forty  years 


104    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

as  were  issued  of  the  Globe  during  the  preceding  forty 
years.  In  other  words,  the  Record  has  become  "  a  cave 
of  the  winds,"  or  a  mausoleum  of  oratory,  poetry, 
useful  and  useless  information,  and  a  medley  of  opinions, 
good,  bad,  and  quixotic,  upon  every  conceivable  sub- 
ject. Until  a  topical  index  is  prepared  it  must  practically 
remain  a  closed  book  except  to  the  most  intrepid  ex- 
plorers. 

The  office  of  "whip"  has  no  official  recognition  in  the 
House.  In  the  British  Commons  it  is  deemed  so  im- 
portant to  successful  party  management  that  the  Min- 
istry assigns  its  duties  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
with  a  salary  of  $10,000,  and  three  junior  lords  of  the 
Treasury,  each  with  a  salary  of  $5000.  As  the  Treasury 
Board  never  meets,  its  members  confine  their  activities 
to  the  passage  of  government  measures.  Though  the 
whip  is  not  recognized  in  the  American  House,  his  work 
has  always  been  performed.  Frequently  the  chairman 
of  a  committee,  charged  with  the  passage  of  an  im- 
portant and  stoutly  contested  measure,  acts  as  a  whip- 
per-in. John  W.  Eppes,  who  headed  Foreign  Affairs 
in  1811,  rounded  up  the  Administration  forces  when 
the  House  first  adopted  the  previous  question.  John 
W.  Taylor  was  a  vigorous  whip.  He  knew  the  sentiment 
of  members,  carried  a  list  of  absent  ones,  and  kept 
adherents  informed  of  an  approaching  vote.  In  the 
Twenty-fifth  Congress  (1837-39)  John  Bell's  vigor  in 
forming  combinations  and  securing  their  presence  at 
roll-calls  angered  Cambreleng  more  than  his  arguments. 
For  long  periods  the  numerical  superiority  of  the  ma- 
jority party  did  not  demand  the  services  of  a  whip. 


OTHER  OFFICERS  AND  THE  WHIP    105 

This  was  especially  true  in  the  Jackson  regime  and 
during  and  immediately  after  the  Civil  War.  But 
whenever  the  division  of  parties  approaches  equality, 
volunteers  quickly  appear  to  rally  and  line  up  opposing 
forces.  When  suppressing  dilatory  motions  and  secur- 
ing the  adoption  of  a  special  order  by  a  majority  vote 
in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  (1881-83),  Thomas  B. 
Reed  became  an  ideal  whip.  In  1875  James  Wilson,  of 
Iowa,  afterward  the  distinguished  Secretary  of  Agri- 
culture, became  the  whip  for  his  party  and  continued  as 
such  for  several  years.  The  first  whip  to  be  chosen  by 
a  party  caucus  (1899)  was  James  E.  Watson,  of  Indiana. 
Though  a  man  of  dauntless  courage,  presenting  the  rare 
combination  of  a  debater  and  platform  speaker  of  high 
order,  he  won  his  way  more  by  a  gracious  manner, 
easily  making  friends  with  everybody.  More  than  this, 
he  was  gifted  with  administrative  skill,  and  though  he 
never  seemed  to  lead  or  direct,  members  of  his  party 
involuntarily  concurred  in  his  suggestions.  After  him 
came  James  A.  Tawney,  of  Minnesota,  also  the  choice 
of  a  party  caucus.  Like  Watson,  Tawney  relied  upon 
brains  more  than  blood,  and  in  rounding  up  his  forces 
without  show  or  fuss  he  evinced  the  poise  and  calmness 
that  indicated  a  majority  behind  him. 

But  the  work  never  became  completely  organized 
until  insurgency  began  to  develop  in  the  Sixtieth  Con- 
gress (1907-09).  It  was  then  that  Speaker  Cannon 
designated  John  W.  Dwight,  of  New  York,  as  the 
whip,  assigning  him  the  room  formerly  occupied  by 
the  Speaker  and  easily  accessible  to  the  floor.  With  the 
assistance  of  House  employees  Dwight  organized  the 


106    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

V  work  into  a  system  as  effective  as  that  of  a  British  whip. 
Helnight  be  seen  daily,  with  whip's  book  in  hand,  taking 
note  of  the  whereabouts  of  every  member,  and  was  able 
at  any  moment  to  report  pairs,  to  give  the  majority 
within  immediate  call,  and  to  indicate  the  number 
summonable  in  twelve  or  twenty-four  hours.  If  the 
debate  showed  signs  of  closing  before  the  time  fixed  for 
members  to  appear,  he  not  infrequently  cautioned  dis- 
putants to  talk  until  his  folks  arrived.  It  became  his 
business,  also,  to  learn  the  disposition  of  members 
toward  party  measures  and  to  report  signs  of  disaf- 
fection. If  serious  discontent  threatened,  the  interces- 
sion of  the  President  was  not  infrequently  invoked. 
Thus  the  labor  of  the  whip  mobilized  the  majority 
party,  kept  it  within  call,  minimized  defeat,  and  in- 
formed leaders  of  the  strength  of  the  Opposition. 


CHAPTER  VII 

FLOOR  LEADERS 

NEXT  to  the  Speaker  in  activity,  if  not  in  influence, 
is  the  floor  leader.  The  head  of  Ways  and  Means  is 
the  titular  leader,  and  before  the  division  of  that  com- 
mittee the  multitude  of  his  duties  made  him  the  actual 
leader.  But  in  1865  the  burden  of  legislation  shifted  to 
the  chairman  of  Appropriations,  who  often  becomes  the 
real  leader. 

The  long  official  list  of  these  leaders  presents  several 
names  obscure  even  to  the  students  of  history.  As 
elsewhere  stated,  a  few  pages  of  their  debates  and  brief 
sketches  in  the  Biographical  Congressional  Directory  are 
seldom  supplemented  in  book  or  newspaper  with  the 
familiar  knowledge  of  contemporaries.  But  their  con- 
spicuous place  in  the  House  distinguishes  them  as  men 
of  more  than  ordinary  capacity,  for  in  interesting  per- 
sonality and  real  ability  the  floor  leader  is  not  infre- 
quently the  strongest  and  at  the  time  the  best-known 
man  in  the  House.  This  was  preeminently  true  of 
Robert  Goodloe  Harper,  of  South  Carolina,  whom 
Speaker  Dayton  appointed  in  1797.  Intrepid,  quick, 
well-informed,  Harper  set  a  high  standard.  He  displayed 
genius  and  positive  statesmanship,  charming  the  House 
with  the  grace  and  adroitness  of  his  arguments.  In  the 
selection  of  George  W.  Campbell,  of  Tennessee,  and  John 
W.  Eppes,  of  Virginia,  Speaker  Varnum  enjoyed  his 


108    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

greatest  triumph.  Earnestness  of  temper  gave  Eppes 
an  impatient  spirit.  He  was  not  always  understood, 
sometimes  a  little  envied,  but  widely  beloved.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  Speaker  Winthrop's  floor  leader,  whose 
name  is  not  readily  recalled.  Yet  in  his  day  the  House 
held  Samuel  F.  Vinton,  of  Ohio,  in  higher  personal 
esteem  than  the  Speaker  himself.  The  trying  task  of 
leadership  under  circumstances  of  peculiar  difficulty 
made  "Vinton"  a  household  word  throughout  the 
country. 

With  the  possible  exception  of  Henry  Clay,  no 
Speaker  ever  won  the  confidence  or  enjoyed  the  friend- 
ship of  the  House  more  than  William  Lowndes,  of  South 
Carolina.  His  genius  pointed  him  out  as  the  triumphant 
champion  of  sound  legislation,  whose  achievements, 
passing  into  the  history  of  his  time,  keeps  his  name 
familiar,  at  least  to  students  of  parliamentary  annals. 
With  a  personality  far  less  winning  than  Lowndes, 
Thaddeus  Stevens,  an  autocratic  floor  leader  of  the  most 
pronounced  type,  rivaled  Speakers  in  influence  and  in 
fame.  The  eye  of  the  visitor  as  he  entered  the  House 
gallery  during  and  immediately  after  the  Civil  War 
first  sought  a  glimpse  of  this  great  radical,  whom  abo- 
litionists admired  as  much  as  men  of  conservative  in- 
stincts dreaded.  At  the  height  of  Speaker  Elaine's 
power  Schenck  and  Dawes  and  Garfield,  who  dominated 
the  floor,  were  equally  famous.  While  Randall  and  Reed 
were  floor  leaders  no  faces  were  more  familiar  and  no 
names  better  known.  Cannon's  leadership  under  Reed 
and  Henderson  stamped  him  as  a  man  of  preeminent 
ability  and  singular  energy.  He  never  trusted  to  his 


FLOOR  LEADERS  109 

star,  or  to  luck,  or  to  anything  save  care  and  prepara- 
tion; and  to  this  day  it  remains  an  unsolved  mystery 
why  his  party  preferred  Henderson  for  Speaker  in  1899. 

It  is  said  that  tact  rather  than  genius  is  the  quality 
most  needed  for  the  work  of  a  floor  leader.  A  distin- 
guished member  of  Parliament  avers  that  "the  essential 
qualities  of  a  leader  are  not  great  powers  of  intellect.  A 
man  of  cool  head,  good  temper,  firm  will,  and  capacity 
for  appreciating  the  serviceable  qualities  of  other  men, 
may  always  make  a  very  successful  leader,  even  though 
he  be  wanting  altogether  in  the  higher  attributes  of  elo- 
quence and  statesmanship."  l  It  certainly  does  not 
follow  that  a  floor  leader  is  the  most  effective  debater, 
or  the  prof  oundest  thinker,  or  the  accepted  leader  of  his 
party,  although  he  may  be  and  sometimes  is  all  of  these. 
It  should  imply,  however,  that  in  the  art  of  clear,  force- 
ful statement,  of  readily  spotting  weak  points  in  an 
opponent's  argument,  and  in  dominating  power  to  safe- 
guard the  interests  of  the  party  temporarily  responsible 
for  the  legislative  record  of  the  House,  he  is  the  best 
equipped  for  his  trade.  It  is  neither  necessary  nor  ad- 
visable for  him  to  lead  or  even  to  take  part  in  every 
debate.Jhejwisdom  of  silence  is  a  great  assei^Besides, 
chairmen  and  members  of  other  committees  are  usually 
quite  capable  and  sufficiently  enthusiastic  to  protect 
their  own  measures.  But  the  floor  leader  must  aid  the 
Speaker  in  straightening  out  parliamentary  tangles,  in 
progressing  business,  and  in  exhibiting  an  irresistible 
desire  to  club  any  captious  interference  with  the  plans 
and  purposes  of  the  majority. 

1  Justin  McCarthy,  A  History  of  Our  Own  Times,  vol.  I,  p.  310. 


110    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Their  speeches,  especially  those  of  the  most  famous, 
have  rarely  exceeded  half  an  hour.  Stevens  and  Randall 
and  Reed,  like  Disraeli  in  the  Commons,  usually  pre- 
sented their  stock  of  good  things  in  fifteen  or  twenty 
minutes.  It  could  not  be  said  of  them  that  they  "  thought 
of  convincing  when  then*  hearers  thought  of  dining." 
Often  they  lamed  an  opponent  with  a  single  sentence. 
"The  use  of  cutting  sarcasm,"  confesses  Adams,  a 
master  of  the  art,  "is  seldom  politic."  Yet  a  floor  leader 
or  the  chairman  of  a  great  committee,  while  he  must  not 
be  venomous,  ought  to  possess  the  gift  of  sarcasm  or 
ridicule  sufficiently  to  protect  him  from  pompous  me- 
diocrity. It  is  always  well  to  inspire  members  with 
something  of  the  fear  that  prevents  the  small  boy  from 
pinching  a  cat's  tail. 

In  selecting  a  floor  leader  the  Speaker  often  names 
his  leading  party  opponent.  Thus  Winthrop  appointed 
Samuel  F.  Vinton  (1847);  Banks  designated  Lewis  D. 
Campbell  (1856);  Pennington  named  John  Sherman 
(1859) ;  and  Reed  selected  McKinley  (1889).  More  often 
it  has  seemed  wise  to  promote  the  ranking  member  of 
Ways  and  Means.  This  accounted,  in  part  at  least,  for 
Clay's  appointment  of  Ezekiel  Bacon  in  1811;  Steven- 
son's designation  of  Gulian  C.  Verplanck  in  1822;  Polk's 
selection  of  Churchill  C.  Cambreleng  in  1835;  Orr's 
advancement  of  James  S.  Phelps  in  1858;  Randall's 
promotion  of  Fernando  Wood  in  1879;  Keifer's  appoint- 
ment of  William  D.  Kelley  in  1881;  Carlisle's  disposition 
of  Roger  Q.  Mills  in  1887;  and  Henderson's  selection  of 
Sereno  E.  Payne  in  1899.  Nor  is  it  uncommon  for 
Speakers  to  reward  faithful  lieutenants.  For  this  reason 


FLOOR  LEADERS  111 

Jones  selected  James  J.  McKay  in  1843;  Cobb  picked 
Thomas  S.  Bayly  in  1849;  Boyd  named  George  S. 
Houston  in  1851;  Kerr  and  Carlisle  selected  William  H. 
Morrison  in  Ij875  and  in  1883;  and  Crisp  appointed 
William  M.  Springer  in  1891. 

It  is  noticeable  that  a  floor  leader  often  influences  the 
tone  of  debate.  If  one  is  insolent  and  overbearing  like 
John  Randolph,  or  moderate  and  courteous  like  William 
Lowndes,  his  colleagues  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  will 
sympathize  with  and  exhibit  such  an  expression  of 
temper.  In  other  words,  the  House  soon  gets  accus- 
tomed to  a  condition,  and  members  who  engage  much  in 
discussion  are  inclined  to  evince  the  spirit  of  an  accepted 
chief.  "  When  Lord  Palmerston  was  first  made  leader  of 
the  House,"  writes  Bagehot,  "his  jaunty  manner  was 
not  at  all  popular,  and  some  predicted  failure.  'No,' 
said  an  old  member,  'he  will  soon  educate  us  down  to 
his  level;  the  House  will  soon  prefer  this  Ha!  Ha!  style 
to  the  wit  of  Canning  or  the  gravity  of  Peel.'  We  must 
own  that  the  prophecy  was  accomplished,  for  he  de- 
graded us  by  diminishing  a  love  for  principle."  l 

Prior  to  the  floor  leadership  of  Randolph,  leaders 
rarely  failed  to  observe  the  amenities  of  debate.  Robert 
Goodloe  Harper,  of  South  Carolina  (1797),  and  Roger 
Griswold,  of  Connecticut  (1800),  then  in  their  thirties, 
set  a  high  tone.  In  political  knowledge,  forceful  elo- 
quence, and  profound  legal  ability,  Griswold  ranked 
among  the  first  men  in  the  nation.  And  he  had  spirit. 
When  Matthew  Lyon,  of  Kentucky,  spat  in  his  face, 
Griswold  stiffened  his  arm  to  strike,  but  remembering 
1  The  English  Constitution,  p.  237. 


THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

where  he  was,  he  coolly  wiped  his  cheek.  But  after  the 
House  by  its  vote  failed  to  expel  Lyon,  he  "beat  him 
with  great  violence,"  says  a  contemporary  chronicle, 
"  using  a  strong  walking-stick."  Of  equal  mettle,  Harper 
was  scarcely  inferior  in  intellectual  force.  The  distinc- 
tion of  his  manner  matched  the  accuracy  of  his  scholar- 
ship. In  the  Chase  impeachment  his  argument  for  the 
defense  is  conspicuous  for  its  logic  and  fine  rhetoric. 

Following  Griswold  as  floor  leader  John  Randolph 
leaped  into  fame.  {Gifted  with  ready  wit,  destructive 
sarcasm,  fluent  speech,  and  a  strong,  well-modulated 
voice,  he  exerted  for  six  years  a  most  remarkable  power 
over  the  House.  Very  few  members  have  left  so  high  a 
reputation  for  eloquence,  and,  it  may  be  said  with  equal 
truth,  so  small  a  basis  of  statesmanship  to  support  it. 
He  rushed  into  controversy  without  fear  and  without 
discretion,  never  betraying  a  moment's  doubt  on  any 
conceivable  question,  andnever  admitting  that  two 
sides  existed  to  any  matter  of  discjission.  ,  His  natural 
vanity,  inflated  by  success,  became  at  lasr  irritatingly 
offensive,  while  opposition  aroused  in  him  a  personal 
malignity  which  turned  debate  into  such  exhibitions  of 
brutality  that  critics  declared  him  "the  image  of  a  great 
man  stamped  upon  base  metal."  Many  feared  him;  not 
a  few  avoided  him;  and  no  one  liked  him.  Yet  his  influ- 
ence left  its  impress  upon  the  manner  and  the  quality  of 
debate.  It  justified  audacity,  inspired  reckless  state- 
ments, and  encouraged  savage  personal  attacks. 

The  courtesy  of  Henry  Clay  rebuked  such  conduct. 
Although  the  first  Speaker  to  comprehend  the  influence 
of  a  strict  application  of  the  rules,  and  the  first  to  con- 


FLOOR  LEADERS  113 

trol  legislation  through  committee  apppointments,  his 
urbanity,  the  key  to  his  great  power,  enabled  him  to 
attach  and  to  retain  the  loyalty  of  men  of  startlingly 
different  habits  of  mind  from  his  own.  The  occasional 
encounters  of  this  master  of  grace  and  affability  with 
John  C.  Calhoun,  or  John  W.  Taylor,  of  New  York,  or 
Philip  P.  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  delighted  the  House  and 
fixed  the  standard  of  good  manners  and  good  temper. 
The  complaisance  of  his  floor  leaders  —  Cheves,  Eppes, 
Lowndes,  Smith,  and  McLane  —  was  scarcely  less 
marked  than  his  own.  Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  if  one  not 
a  Speaker  ever  acquired  a  greater  personal  influence 
than  William  Lowndes.  He  was  a  Saul  in  stature,  and 
supplemented  commanding  ability  with  an  amiable 
disposition  and  an  irreproachable  character.  Benton's 
tribute,  though  often  quoted,  will  bear  to  be  quoted 
again:  "He  was  one  of  those  members,"  said  the  great 
Missourian,  "rare  in  all  assemblies,  who,  when  he  spoke, 
had  a  cluster  around  him,  not  of  friends,  but  of  the 
House,  —  members  quitting  their  distant  seats  and 
gathering  up  close  about  him,  and  showing  by  their 
attention  that  one  would  feel  it  a  personal  loss  to  have 
missed  a  word  he  said.  It  was  the  attention  of  affection- 
ate confidence.  He  imparted  to  others  the  harmony  of 
his  own  feelings,  and  was  the  moderator  as  well  as  the 
leader  of  the  House,  and  was  followed  by  its  sentiment 
in  all  cases  in  which  inexorable  party  feeling  or  some 
powerful  interest  did  not  rule  the  action  of  the  members, 
and  even  then  he  was  courteously  and  deferentially 
treated."  l 

1  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  I,  p.  18. 


114    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

The  House  always  gets  on  better  when  the  Golden 
Rule  governs.  Speaker  Cannon's  friendship  for  John  S. 
Williams,  of  Mississippi,  during  the  latter's  long  leader- 
ship of  the  minority  had  a  mellowing  influence  on  the 
whole  membership,  whereas  the  disturbed  relations  be- 
tween Speaker  Crisp  and  Thomas  B.  Reed,  and  later 
between  Speaker  Reed  and  Joseph  W.  Bailey,  of  Texas, 
inclined  the  friends  of  each  to  be  somewhat  resentful. 
But  for  real  turbulence,  when  the  House  became  a  bed- 
lam and  the  center  aisle  seemed  to  separate  enemies 
rather  than  opponents,  one  must  go  back  to  the  time  of 
Speakers  Stevenson  and  Polk,  when  George  McDuffie, 
of  South  Carolina,  Churchill  C.  Cambreleng,  of  New 
York,  and  John  W.  Jones,  of  Virginia,  headed  Ways  and 
Means.  Indeed,  to  quell  riotous  disorder  provoked  by 
coarse  and  brutal  language,  Polk  was  the  first  Speaker 
to  snatch  the  gavel  from  the  hand  of  a  chairman  before 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  had  formally  risen.  At 
this  period  a  degree  of  personal  irritation,  rarely  if  ever 
equaled  in  our  legislative  history,  seemed  to  character- 
ize debate.  The  moral  courage  of  John  Quincy  Adams, 
who  fought  for  the  right  of  petition,  undoubtedly  con- 
tributed to  it.  It  is  also  true,  as  Mr.  Blaine  states,  that 
with  very  few  exceptions  the  really  eminent  debaters 
during  those  years  were  in  the  Senate;  l  otherwise 
McDuffie,  chief  of  the  Hotspurs,  could  scarcely  have 
justified  his  title  to  floor  leader.  He  was  a  talker;  he  was 
the  talker;  he  was  the  genius  of  talk.  More  than  that  he 
was  a  magnificent  and  an  unmitigated  egotist.  Able, 
bold,  impatient,  and  quick  to  take  offense,  he  poured 
1  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  I,  p.  70. 


FLOOR  LEADERS  115 

out  his  noisy  denunciations  and  passionate  invectives, 
often  mercilessly  personal,  until  he  had  exhausted  every 
rhetorical  weapon.  If  an  opponent  flashed  a  word  in 
resentment,  he  promptly  indicated  a  willingness  to  an- 
swer at  another  place,  and  although  he  once  balked  at  a 
rifle  in  the  hands  of  Thomas  Metcalfe,  of  Kentucky,  he 
did  not  lose  prestige  as  a  disciple  of  the  code  duello.  It 
may  be  said  in  extenuation  that  McDuffie  had  much  to 
provoke  him.  His  views  were  resented  and  his  bills 
rejected,  while  the  tariff  acts  of  1828,  1830,  and  1832, 
reported  by  the  rival  Committee  on  Manufactures, 
passed  without  the  acceptance  of  an  amendment  pro- 
posed by  Ways  and  Means.  Yet  McDuffie  kept  the 
rivalry  hot  and  eager  until  elected  governor  of  his  State, 
where  he  was  as  popular  as  a  later-day  music-hall  artist. 
Cambreleng  belonged  to  a  lower  type.  Although  of 
great  authority  on  financial  subjects,  he  was  an  ultra  of 
the  ranting,  declamatory  style,  without  wit  or  humor, 
and  seemingly  fond  of  being  offensive.  If  interrupted, 
he  bullied  and  became  brutal,  sometimes  flaming  out 
with  a  flourish  of  emphatic  malice.  If  any  one  doubts 
the  superiority  of  modern  manners,  he  has  only  to  read 
the  controversies  of  Cambreleng's  day,  when  "liar, 
scoundrel,  and  puppy"  was  a  common  combination 
epithet.1  Upon  resuming  his  seat,  after  having  replied 
to  a  severe  personal  arraignment  of  Henry  Clay,  former 
Speaker  White,  without  the  slightest  warning,  received 
a  blow  in  the  face.  In  the  fight  that  followed  a  pistol  was 
discharged,  wounding  an  officer  of  the  police.2  John 

1  26th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  145. 

2  Adams,  Diary,  vol.  xn,  p.  16. 


116    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Bell,  the  distinguished  Speaker  and  statesman,  had  a 
similar  experience  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  (1838). 
The  fisticuff  became  so  violent  that  even  the  Chair  could 
not  quell  it.  Later  in  the  day  both  parties  apologized 
and  "made  their  submissions.'*  On  February  6,  1845, 
Edward  J.  Black,  of  Georgia,  "crossed  over  from  his 
seat,  and,  coming  within  the  bar  behind  Joshua  R.  Gid- 
dings  as  he  was  speaking,  made  a  pass  at  the  back  of  his 
head  with  a  cane.  William  H.  Hammett,  of  Mississippi, 
threw  his  arms  round  Black  and  bore  him  off  as  he  would 
a  woman  from  a  fire.  Black  sneaked  to  his  seat  and  in  a 
tone  so  low  he  could  not  be  heard  whispered  an  apology 
for  having  trespassed  on  the  order  of  the  House."  1 

"These  were  not  pleasant  days,*'  writes  Thomas  B. 
Reed.  "Men  were  not  nice  in  their  treatment  of  each 
other.  When  Reuben  M.  Whitney  was  before  a  commit- 
tee of  investigation  in  1837,  Bailie  Peyton,  of  Tennessee, 
taking  offense  at  one  of  his  answers,  threatened  him 
fiercely,  and  when  he  rose  to  claim  the  committee's  pro- 
tection, Mr.  Peyton,  with  due  and  appropriate  profan- 
ity, shouted :  *  You  shan't  say  one  word  while  you  are  in 
this  room;  if  you  do  I  will  put  you  to  death.'  The  chair- 
man, Henry  A.  Wise,  added:  'Yes;  this  insolence  is 
insufferable.'  As  both  these  gentlemen  were  armed  with 
deadly  weapons,  the  witness  could  hardly  be  blamed  for 
not  wanting  to  testify  before  the  committee  again."  2 

It  shows  how  callous  the  House  had  become  that 
George  Evans,  of  Maine,  could  serve  for  twelve  years 
during  the  leadership  of  McDuffie,  Cambreleng,  and 

1  Adams,  Diary,  vol.  xn,  p.  162. 

2  Saturday  Evening  Post,  December  9,  1899. 


FLOOR  LEADERS  117 

Polk  without  influencing  their  manners.  To  find  one 
so  brilliant  and  highly  cultivated  in  such  company  is 
like  discovering,  nested  amidst  floating  weeds,  a  freshly 
opened  water-lily,  sparkling  in  the  sunshine.  Probably 
no  one  in  his  time  or  in  any  time  had  in  combination 
more  oratorical  gifts  than  Evans.  His  powers  of  reason- 
ing and  of  pathos,  his  elocution  and  language,  his  stirring 
arguments  animated  and  inspired  by  deep  feeling,  his 
playful  and  cutting  severity,  his  mellow  voice  and  gen- 
tle manners,  made  him  the  most  distinguished  man  in 
the  House.  Blaine  says  of  him:  "Of  all  who  have  repre- 
sented New  England  in  Congress,  Mr.  Evans,  as  a  de- 
bater, is  entitled  to  rank  next  to  Mr.  Webster."  *  ^ 

As  the  successor  of  Cambreleng,  John  W.  Jones  kept 
well  up  to  the  level  of  his  time  in  swaggering.  He  was 
lame  and  not  prepossessing  in  appearance,  but  he  pos- 
sessed elements  of  leadership  unknown  to  the  New 
Yorker.  Of  fluent  and  convincing  eloquence,  he  loved 
the  platform  and  delighted  in  intimate  intercourse  with 
the  crowd.  He  also  had  the  power  of  saying  much  in  a 
few  words  and  appreciated  the  relative  value  of  speech 
and  silence.  He  was  indisposed  to  pluck  the  peach 
before  it  was  ripe.  Indeed,  instead  of  forcing  issues  on 
the  public  or  on  the  House,  he  preferred  to  make  his 
appearance  when  the  air  had  been  warmed,  and  then 
with  clever  arguments,  gracefully  expressed  in  a  strong, 
well-modulated  voice,  he  held  the  attention  of  the  House 
as  if  he  were  its  master.  Yet  his  tolerance  and  the 
warmth  of  his  human  sympathies  were  negligible.  He 
shared  his  party's  general  distrust  of  the  liberalists  of 
1  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i,  p.  72. 


118    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

his  day  and  never  disguised  his  impatience  with  the 
growing  new  thought.  To  him  it  was  a  red  rag  which 
made  him  bellow  and  paw  the  dust.  At  such  times  he 
could  outdo  Cambreleng. 

It  was  fortunate  that  the  minority  in  these  swagger- 
ing days  was  led  by  John  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  memorable 
as  the  candidate  of  the  Union  party  for  President  in 
1860.  Although  incapable  of  the  stirring,  brilliant  argu- 
ments of  George  Evans,  or  the  quick,  piquant  replies  of 
Henry  R.  Storrs,  of  New  York,  Bell  was  ready  for  any 
fray.  He  had  a  way  of  expressing  unmitigated  contempt 
in  a  tone  that  exasperated.  With  the  lance  of  a  picador 
he  kept  Cambreleng  in  a  rage.  He  fought  his  way  by 
sheer  talent  into  the  front  rank  of  the  Opposition.  As 
a  lawyer  whose  knowledge  might  fairly  be  called  pro- 
found, he  rose  to  celebrity  and  influence  in  the  prime 
of  life,  entering  the  House  at  the  age  of  thirty.  His 
resources  seemed  inexhaustible,  enabling  him  on  the 
shortest  notice  to  marshal  facts  and  arguments,  and  to 
sustain  the  brunt  of  debate  with  the  ablest  foes.  On 
occasion  he  could  also  pour  out  an  animated,  even  a 
passionate  invective,  and  although  once  betrayed  into 
resenting  a  coarse  interruption  with  a  blow  of  his  fist, 
he  had  moderation  and  discretion.  But  it  never  inter- 
fered with  his  physical  courage. 

The  manners  of  James  J.  McKay,  of  North  Carolina, 
appointed  floor  leader  by  his  predecessor,  Speaker  John 
W.  Jones  (1843),  were  an  improvement  over  those  of  his 
immediate  predecessors.  McKay  was  a  plain-looking 
man,  and  as  careless  of  dress  as  John  Quincy  Adams,  of 
whom  it  was  derisively  said,  when  President,  that  he  sat 


FLOOR  LEADERS  119 

in  his  shirt-sleeves  and  wore  no  slippers;  but  as  a  de- 
bater of  power,  of  which  he  was  conscious,  though  with 
little  personal  vanity,  McKay  spoke  with  astonishing 
mildness.  Even  the  satirical  bitterness  of  Wise  did  not 
disturb  him.  To  strike  sparks  of  light  on  every  sub- 
ject with  no  trace  of  rudeness  contrasted  so  strangely 
with  the  dashing,  impulsive  attacks  of  McDuffie  and  the 
overbearing  insolence  of  Cambreleng,  that  some  thought 
his  moderation  covered  an  insidious  spirit  under  a  mask 
of  candor.  Perhaps  his  words  were  sometimes  stealthy, 
but  it  remained  to  his  credit  that  he  conducted  sharp, 
forceful  debate  in  a  courteous  manner. 

The  civility  of  McKay's  successor,  Samuel  F.  Vinton, 
of  Ohio  (1847),  made  a  deeper  impression.  Backed  by 
twenty  years  of  service,  he  was  in  the  full  flower  of  his 
strength  and  of  his  fame.  Although  of  slight  frame  and 
weak  voice,  his  handsome  face,  slightly  austere,  with  its 
prominent  forehead  and  blazing  blue  eyes,  gave  as- 
surance of  abundant  force  and  will  power.  After  Evans 
had  passed  to  the  Senate,  Adams  spoke  of  him  as  the 
best  and  ablest  man  in  the  House.  Even  his  veracity 
was  mentioned  as  a  distinguishing  merit.  Whether  this 
implied  that  members  generally  and  floor  leaders  in 
particular  failed  to  show  a  preference  for  the  truth,  one 
can  only  guess.  But  Vinton  had  the  oratory  of  convic- 
tion. He  cared  for  the  substance  rather  than  the  graces 
of  speech,  and  with  a  well-disciplined  temper  he  rounded 
out  long,  heated  discussions  without  the  slightest  acer- 
bity. With  gratifying  sympathy  he  represented  a  very 
substantial  body  of  Whigs,  and  hi  1847  the  party  re- 
warded his  fidelity  with  a  nomination  for  Speaker.  It 


120    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

was  practically  unanimous.  But  in  opposing  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  he  had  disturbed  the  irreconcilable  anti-slavery 
element,  and  in  the  interest  of  harmony  he  withdrew 
in  favor  of  Winthrop,  who  had  sustained  the  Proviso. 
It  was  one  of  those  happenings  which  occasionally  make 
the  game  of  politics  so  bewildering.  In  a  day  sentiment 
seemed  to  change.  What  had  been  politically  unpopular 
suddenly  became  morally  popular,  and  the  Whig  states- 
men who  opposed  the  Proviso  quickly  felt  a  loss  of 
power.  Winthrop,  failing  to  profit  by  Vinton's  experi- 
ence, realized  the  change  in  1849  when  Howell  Cobb 
defeated  his  reelection  by  two  votes.  Thus  the  quick 
turn  of  the  tide  stranded  them  both  —  Vinton  at  the 
age  of  fifty-nine  and  Winthrop  at  forty-two.  Seldom 
has  a  political  career  been  so  abruptly  cut  short  as  that 
of  Mr.  Winthrop.  Never  afterward  did  he  seem  to  have 
any  particular  business  in  public  life.  Yet  he  lived  on 
for  over  forty  years,  his  intellectual  powers  unshattered, 
the  foremost  citizen  of  his  native  Commonwealth. 

Speaker  Cobb  appointed  Thomas  H.  Bayly,  of  Vir- 
ginia, floor  leader.  It  was  a  case  of  gratitude.  Bayly 
had  never  served  upon  Ways  and  Means,  nor  disclosed 
the  restless  intelligence  that  pierces  a  delicately  woven 
web  which  often  conceals  an  unnecessarily  large  appro- 
priation; but  throughout  the  long,  tedious,  fickle  con- 
test for  Speaker,  he  watched  Cobb's  interests,  and  with 
good  temper  and  forceful  speech  gave  striking  proof  of 
his  preference  for  factional  advantage.  He  was  not  a 
far-seeing  man.  He  did  not  trouble  himself  about  future 
problems,  and  in  the  end  he  achieved  results  which  a 
bare  majority  rather  than  the  country  at  large  welcomed 


FLOOR   LEADERS  121 

and  applauded.  These  characteristics,  dominating  his, 
floor  leadership,  aroused  suspicions  of  inconsiderate  con- 
duct, and  often  left  him  in  a  minority.  Thus  he  became 
a  titular,  not  a  real  leader,  and  although  he  remained 
in  the  House  until  his  death  in  1856,  he  dropped  out  of 
parliamentary  activity  at  the  close  of  Cobb's  two  years 
in  the  chair. 

Speaker  Boyd  selected  George  S.  Houston,  of  Ala- 
bama. Houston  had  been  a  Whig.  He  supported 
Winthrop  against  Cobb,  following  Toombs  and  Stephens 
and  Stanly;  but  in  1851,  acting  independently  of  his 
associates,  he  shifted  his  party  and  took  his  reward. 
Although  a  man  of  undoubted  ability  and  of  a  brave, 
commanding  spirit,  who  had  served  four  years  on  Ways 
and  Means,  ranking  next  to  Vinton,  he  lacked  all  the 
essential  qualities  of  leadership.  He  had  audacity  and 
aggressiveness,  but  little  parliamentary  skill  and  neither 
patience  nor  political  tact.  Besides,  his  eloquence  was 
massive.  He  shouted  and  thundered.  John  W.  Forney, 
the  amiable  clerk,  called  him  the  noisiest  man  in  the 
House.  One  marvels  at  the  boldness  of  his  assertions 
during  the  violent  controversy  over  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise.  He  seemed  to  talk  with  a 
grandiose  and  oracular  vagueness,  sometimes  baffling 
and  frequently  bewildering  men  of  greater  knowledge. 
He  left  the  impression  upon  many,  who  watched  his 
restless  figure  as  he  stormed  and  gesticulated,  that  he 
discussed  subjects  of  which  he  evidently  knew  noth- 
ing. Happily  for  him  the  clever  parliamentary  trick 
of  Stephens,1  releasing  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  from 
1  See  chap,  xin,  p.  268. 


122    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Committee  of  the  Whole,  saved  his  leadership  from  be- 
coming a  burlesque.  But  his  influence  seriously  lowered 
the  tone  of  debate.  Undoubtedly  the  sudden  revival  of 
the  slavery  issue,  fanned  into  fierce  flame  by  the  repeal 
of  a  sacred  compact,  had  its  influence.  It  turned  good- 
tempered  men  into  ill-natured  ones.  Yet  Houston's 
personality  itself  provoked  a  rudeness  that  had  largely 
disappeared  after  Cambreleng's  day.  He  simply  knew 
nothing  of  the  social  temper  which  in  this  day  insists 
that  the  first  duty  of  a  gentleman  is  to  apologize  for  an 
unjust  or  offensive  expression  in  debate. 

Lewis  D.  Campbell,  of  Ohio,  succeeded  Houston. 
For  a  man  of  marked  ability,  Campbell  proved,  perhaps, 
the  most  disappointing  of  floor  leaders  (1855).  His 
speeches,  admirable  for  freshness  and  vigor,  had  given 
him  great  prestige.  He  possessed  the  happy  knack  of 
saying  bitter  things  in  an  epigrammatic  way.  In  the 
debate  on  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  he 
became  the  Achilles  of  the  Opposition.  He  sounded  an 
alarm.  He  hit  the  tone  and  temper  of  Northern  people, 
voicing  their  fears  and  expressing  their  sentiments.  He 
seemed  especially  to  delight  in  attacking  Houston, 
whose  noisy  loquacity  presented  a  shining  mark  for 
sarcasm.  His  colleagues  applauded  him,  talked  of  him 
for  Speaker,  gave  him  a  flattering  vote,  and  after  his 
withdrawal  in  favor  of  Banks,  the  latter  made  him 
chairman  of  Ways  and  Means.  But  like  Bayly  he  had 
neither  served  on  the  committee  nor  studied  the  art  of 
adjusting  duties  or  paring  appropriations,  while  his 
erratic  views,  backed  with  cynical  frankness,  soon  dis- 
closed weakness  as  a  leader.  His  bill  pleased  no  one. 


FLOOR  LEADERS  123 

Even  the  Ohio  wool-raisers  in  no  wise  benefited.  He 
seemed  to  realize  its  failure,  otherwise  his  speech  in  its 
favor  must  have  found  a  place  in  the  Globe.  Indeed,  he 
had  a  way  of  talking  and  not  publishing.  One  looks  in 
vain  for  his  remarks  favoring  the  expulsion  of  Preston 
S.  Brooks  because  of  his  brutal  assault  upon  Senator 
Sumner  (1856).  As  floor  leader  he  presented  the  resolu- 
tion and  closed  the  debate,  but  he  withheld  his  words 
from  the  Globe,  although  he  had  taken  Sumner's  hand 
immediately  after  the  assault,  as  the  blood-stained 
statesman  lay  in  the  cloak-room  of  the  Senate.1  How- 
ever, Campbell  might  have  survived  these  shortcom- 
ings, as  others  have  before  and  since,  could  he  have 
worked  in  harmony  with  his  party.  But  he  followed  no 
better  than  he  led,  and,  although  a  very  able  man,  his 
public  career  ended  just  as  some  of  his  Northern  col- 
leagues, destined  to  become  famous,  seized  the  situation 
with  the  imaginative  courage  of  creative  minds.  Only 
once  afterward  did  he  go  back  to  Congress,  and  then 
as  a  supporter  of  President  Johnson. 

John  Sherman,  of  Ohio,  who  became  floor  leader  when 
Henry  Winter  Davis  refused  to  make  him  Speaker  (1860), 
was  at  once  recognized  as  the  steadying  power  of  the 
combination  that  finally  took  control  of  the  House.  By 
temperament  he  was  the  least  adventurous  of  states- 
men, indifferent  to  dreams,  insensible  to  idealism,  but 
deeply  interested  in  practical  things.  He  had  reverence 
for  a  bond,  for  constitutional  precedent,  and  for  biter- 
national  law,  with  the  promptness  of  a  tax  collector. 

1  Edward  L.  Pierce,  Life  of  Charles  Sumner,  vol.  m,  pp.  478,  490, 
notes. 


124    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

He  seems,  also,  to  have  agreed  with  the  younger  Pitt, 
that  the  highest  virtue  of  statesmanship  is  patience,  and 
no  man  ever  exhibited  a  more  abundant  supply  of  it 
than  he  during  the  prolonged  and  savage  Speakership 
contest  at  the  opening  of  the  Thirty-sixth  Congress 
(1859-61).  He  was  slow  to  anger,  and  a  cold  indifference 
sometimes  made  him  appear  a  little  flaccid.  But  once 
engaged  his  mind  worked  with  unrivaled  power.  It 
may  be  said  that  throughout  his  long,  notable  career 
an  emergency  always  found  him  greater  than  the  need. 
It  brought  quickly  into  play  all  the  resources  of  a  power- 
ful intellect,  methodical,  clear,  masterful,  with  a  pas- 
sionless detachment  of  spirit  that  made  him  supreme. 
Yet  it  was  well  known  to  his  friends  and  often  revealed 
to  the  public  that  behind  a  rather  frigid  exterior  he 
cultivated  the  sensibilities.  While  he  mobilized  the 
forces  of  wealth  and  privilege  in  the  interest  of  the 
Union,  he  exhibited  a  true  instinct  for  the  welfare  of  all 
the  people,  and  especially  for  the  amelioration  of  the 
down-trodden.  It  was  this  sympathy  that  deprived  him 
of  the  Speakership. 

Only  occasionally  has  an  official  floor  leader  repre- 
sented what  Disraeli  called  "sublime  mediocrity." 
Ezekiel  Bacon,  of  Massachusetts  (1811),  belonged  in 
this  class.  Although  he  could  address  the  House  with 
a  fluency  not  unworthy  of  Clay  himself,  he  proved 
neither  skillful  as  a  debater  nor  useful  in  progressing 
business.  Adams  likened  him  to  Joseph  Vance,  of 
Ohio,  who  "rose  by  his  eloquence  to  Congress  and  then 
dropped  into  his  primitive  obscurity." l  With  him 
1  Diary,  vol.  n,  p.  388. 


FLOOR  LEADERS  125 

be  classed  Joseph  Clay,  of  Pennsylvania.  Gulian  C. 
Verplanck,  of  New  York  (1832),  and  J.  Glancy  Jones, 
of  Pennsylvania  (1857),  whom  Speaker  Orr  appointed 
at  the  instance  of  President  Buchanan.  Like  Bacon 
these  men  simply  filled  a  gap,  each  for  a  session.  It  was 
during  the  floor  leadership  of  J.  Glancy  Jones  that  the 
remarkable  scene  occurred  between  Galusha  A.  Grow, 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  Lawrence  M.  Keitt,  of  South  Car- 
olina.1 The  former  had  passed  to  the  Democratic  side 
of  the  chamber,  and  while  there  John  A.  Quitman,  of 
Mississippi,  asked  leave  to  speak.  Grow  objected. 
Keitt,  who  stood  near,  said  roughly:  "If  you  are  going 
to  object,  return  to  your  own  side  of  the  House."  Grow 
answered:  "This  is  a  free  hall.  Every  man  has  a  right 
to  be  where  he  pleases."  Keitt,  coming  nearer,  said: 
"I  want  to  know  what  you  mean  by  such  an  answer  as 
that."  Grow  replied:  "I  mean  just  what  I  said.  This 
is  a  free  hall  and  every  man  has  a  right  to  be  just  where 
he  pleases."  Thereupon  Keitt  seized  Grow  by  the 
throat,  exclaiming:  "I  will  let  you  know  that  you  are 

a black  Republican  puppy."  Grow  knocked 

up  his  hand,  saying,  "No  negro  driver  shall  crack  his 
whip  over  me."  Keitt  again  grasped  him  by  the  throat, 
and  Grow  knocked  him  down. 

"Keitt's  fall,"  says  Reed,  in  writing  of  this  historic 
incident,  "was  the  signal  for  a  mad  rush  to  the  space 
in  front  of  the  Speaker,  members  striking  each  other, 
and  a  general  mel£e  ensued,  with  Washburne,  of  Illinois, 
and  Potter,  of  Wisconsin,  most  conspicuous.  Barksdale, 
of  Mississippi,  rushed  at  Mr.  Covode,  who  uplifted  a 
1  February.  1858. 


126    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

spittoon;  but  Barksdale's  wig  came  off  and  Covode 
had  not  the  heart  to  smite  his  unprotected  skull.  The 
Speaker  called  on  the  sergeant-at-arms,  and  the  ser- 
geant-at-arms,  with  his  assistants,  came  with  the  mace, 
the  insignia  of  his  office,  and  after  several  minutes  the 
uproar  was  quelled.  Afterward  Mr.  Keitt  made  a  most 
handsome  apology,  taking  the  blame  on  himself."  1 

In  the  class  with  J.  Glancy  Jones  belongs  William  M. 
Springer,  of  Illinois,  who  became  floor  leader  during 
Speaker  Crisp's  first  term  (1891-93).  Springer  was 
neither  sincere  nor  intellectually  honest.  Loquacious, 
often  frivolous,  and  never  impressive,  he  seemed  to  be 
always  on  his  feet  and  apparently  indifferent  to  the 
position  he  assumed.  It  was  in  defense  of  some  vagary 
that  he  remarked,  "I'd  rather  be  right  than  President." 
To  which  Reed  flashed  the  retort,  "The  gentleman  from 
Illinois  will  never  be  either."  Reed  delighted  in  pricking 
him.  On  one  occasion  Springer  asked  unanimous  con- 
sent to  correct  a  statement.  "No  correction  needed," 
piped  up  Reed.  "  We  did  n't  think  it  was  so  when  you 
made  it."  When  Springer  accused  the  Maine  statesman 
of  making  light  of  his  remarks,  Reed  replied,  "If  I 
'make  light*  of  his  remarks,  it  is  more  than  he  ever 
makes  of  them  himself."  Springer's  leadership  became 
so  intolerable  that  Crisp  soon  transferred  its  duties  to 
Benton  McMillin,  of  the  Committee  on  Rules.  Even 
the  Tennesseean,  although  exhibiting  marked  ability 
and  considerable  parliamentary  aptitude,  advocated 
partisan  special  orders  with  proverbial  Scottish  caution. 
What  his  party  demanded  was  a  dashing,  violent  oppo- 
1  Saturday  Evening  Post,  December  9,  1899. 


FLOOR  LEADERS  127 

sition  to  Thomas  B.  Reed,  then  the  minority  leader, 
and  in  the  next  Congress  (1893)  Crisp  again  shifted  the 
leadership  to  Joseph  H.  Outhwaite,  of  Ohio,  with 
William  L.  Wilson,  of  West  Virginia,  as  chairman  of 
Ways  and  Means.  This  was  a  more  formidable  team, 
but  Reed's  rapid-firing  gun  finally  drove  Crisp  to  the 
shelter  of  a  counted  quorum. 

William  L.  Wilson  was  a  scholar,  dignified,  tolerantly 
placid,  of  keen  perceptions,  and  a  good  speaker,  who 
confined  his  efforts  to  shaping  a  revenue  measure  (1894). 
Of  his  class  Millard  Fillmore  (1841)  may  be  called  the 
prototype.  Fillmore  was  not  a  ready  debater.  Though 
possessing  a  clear,  strong  voice,  he  neither  stirred  the 
feelings  nor  aroused  the  emotions.  Critics  said  his 
figures  belonged  to  arithmetic,  not  to  rhetoric.  But  he 
had  ability,  good  judgment,  and  great  industry,  and 
although  Adams  gave  McKennan,  of  Pennsylvania, 
credit  for  passing  the  tariff  bill  of  1842,  it  made  Fill- 
more's  name  familiar  in  seats  of  industry  and  opened 
his  way  to  the  Vice-Presidency. 

Other  official  floor  leaders  whose  names  are  wedded 
to  the  tariff  policy  of  their  country  are  Justin  Morrill,  of 
Vermont  (1861);  Robert  C.  Schenck,  of  Ohio  (1867); 
Henry  L.  Dawes,  of  Massachusetts  (1871);  William 
D.  Kelley  of  Pennsylvania  (1881);  WiUiam  McKinley, 
of  Ohio  (1889);  William  L.  Wilson,  of  West  Virginia 
(1894);  Nelson  Dingley,  of  Maine  (1897);  Sereno  E. 
Payne,  of  New  York  (1909) ;  and  Oscar  W.  Underwood, 
of  Alabama  (1913).  Several  of  these  men  were  noted 
Speakers,  their  persuasive  arguments,  strong  and  vig- 
orous, often  rising  into  the  domain  of  eloquence.  On 


128    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

their  feet,  as  the  phrase  is,  Schenck  and  Dawes  were 
ideal  controversialists;  McKinley  never  fell  to  the  level 
of  rhetorical  commonplace;  and  Payne,  like  Underwood, 
though  not  an  orator  in  the  true  sense,  possessed  a 
clear,  thoughtful,  and  sometimes  a  stately  style  of 
speaking.  Nelson  Dingley,  although  slight  of  figure, 
with  rather  a  weak  voice,  whose  over-supply  of  informa- 
tion sometimes  made  him  tedious,  was  an  accomplished 
parliamentarian  and  never  failed  to  command  close  at- 
tention. He  was  such  a  marvel  of  industry  that  Reed 
declared  "he'd  rather  have  a  pad  and  pencil  on  his 
knee  than  a  pretty  girl." 

After  the  division  of  Ways  and  Means  in  1865  the 
actual  floor  leader,  as  already  stated,  was  often  the 
chairman  of  Appropriations.  When  Schenck  and  Dawes 
headed  the~se  respective  committees  (186&-71)  it  was 
difficult  to  indicate  the  real  leader,  though  Elaine  de- 
clared Schenck  "the  unquestioned  chief."  Like  Wil- 
liam Lowndes  he  was  admirably  fitted  for  the  arduous 
and  difficult  duty.  Years  before,  when  serving  as  a  Whig 
(1843-51),  Adams  said  of  him:  "His  manner  is  cool, 
firm,  unhesitating,  with  conscious  mastery  of  his  subject; 
his  voice  clear  and  strong;  his  elocution  neat  and  elegant, 
with  a  swelling  vein  of  sarcastic  humor  which  makes  the 
hall  ring  with  laughter."  1  Elaine  adds  that "  as  a  debater 
he  had  no  equal  in  the  House."  2  It  was  not  so  difficult 
to  pick  the  floor  leader  when  Dawes  succeeded  Schenck, 
and  Garfield  became  the  head  of  Appropriations  (1871- 
75).  Although  both  were  masters  of  parliamentary  de- 

1  Diary,  vol.  xi,  p.  479. 

2  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  voL  I,  p.  499. 


FLOOR  LEADERS  129 

bate,  Garfield  had  little  of  the  real  fighter  in  his  nature. 
His  forceful  speeches,  full  of  the  passion  and  poetry 
essential  to  genuine  eloquence,  deeply  stirred  the  House, 
but  he  preferred  to  leave  the  rough  work  of  the  floor  to 
others. 

Under  the  Speakership  of  Kerr  and  Carlisle,  William 
H.  Morrison,  of  Illinois,  and  Roger  Q.  Mills,  of  Texas, 
headed  Ways  and  Means.  Mills  talked  oftener  than 
Morrison,  but  in  personal  fQrce__ailisubtlety  of  mind  he 
may  be  paired  with  Morrison.  Then*  achievements,  how- 
ever, were  incommensurate  with  then*  efforts,  which 
kept  their  party  expectant  and  the  House  distrustful. 
During  these  years  Samuel  J.  Randall,  chairman  of 
Appropriations,  was  the  acknowledged  leader.  In  fact, 
it  made  little  difference  who  topped  Ways  and  Means, 
the  Pennsylvanian  was  always  chief.  From  the  time  he 
entered  Congress  in  1863  until  his  death  in  1890,  his 
political  career  was  a  triumph  of  character  and  of  intel- 
lectual mastery.  In  many  respects  his  equipment  was 
undistinguished.  Unknown  in  society,  indifferent  to  the 
currents  of  modern  life,  and  with  limited  education,  his 
young  manhood  reveled  in  political  caucuses  and  Phila- 
delphia polling-places,  with  a  tendency  to  govern  with 
his  fists  as  well  as  his  head.  But  even  then  the  serenity 
of  his  manner,  the  honesty  of  his  aims,  and  his  freedom 
from  artifice  combined  to  give  him  a  unique  authority. 
Reed  said  of  him:  "Perhaps  there  may  have  been  better 
parliamentarians,  men  of  broader  intellect  and  more 
learning,  but  there  have  been  few  men  with  a  will  more 
like  iron  or  a  courage  more  unfaltering."  1  Randall 
1  Saturday  Evening  Post,  December  9,  1899. 


130     THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

picked  lieutenants  with  great  shrewdness.  When 
Speaker  (1876-81)  he  put  John  D.  C.  Atkins,  of  Tennes- 
see, at  the  head  of  Appropriations  and  made  Fernando 
Wood,  of  New  York,  chairman  of  Ways  and  Means.  It 
was  a  forceful  team.  Bold,  ready,  independent,  and 
sometimes  impudent,  Atkins  threw  himself  with  energy 
into  the  task  of  paring  appropriations;  but  in  all  the 
political  controversies  that  gnawed  at  the  vitals  of  a 
recently  resurrected  party,  Wood  did  the  heavy  work. 

Wood  was  a  strenuous,  self -asserting  character.  He 
had  great  skill  in  debate  and  played  a  striking  part  in 
the  politics  of  his  time.  But  his  bitter  partisanship 
gained  him  a  reputation  even  more  unsavory  than  that 
of  Cambreleng.  His  personal  assaults  upon  President 
Lincoln,  often  revoltingly  vulgar,  became  conspicuous 
and  most  offensive.  He  had  a  cold,  sardonic  intellect, 
and  his  destructive  arguments,  imperiously  and  auda- 
ciously mischievous,  often  drove  him  into  outbursts  of 
denunciation  which  startled  even  his  party  colleagues. 
He  cared  nothing  for  a  formally  inflicted  censure.1  He 
accepted  it  as  a  matter  of  course,  insisting  that  his  lan- 
guage exactly  conveyed  what  he  meant  to  express. 
Nobody  ever  praised  his  judgment  and  nothing  ever 
jarred  his  nerves.  His  colleagues  hinted  at "  the  demonic 
element,"  shown  by  the  glare  of  his  eye,  which  disposed 
him  to  attack  everything  and  to  blame  everybody. 
Members  wondered  at  Randall's  appointment  of  such 
an  indefatigable  and  reckless  champion;  yet  those  who, 
like  Blaine,  had  served  with  him  from  the  beginning, 
spoke  of  him  as  belonging  to  a  manly  type,  who  never 
1  40th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  542. 


FLOOR  LEADERS  131 

allowed  political  antagonisms  to  destroy  friendly  rela- 
tions. 

After  Randall  retired  as  Speaker  he  faced  Thomas  B. 
Reed,  just  then  winning  his  spurs  as  a  fighting  leader. 
Reed  never  headed  Appropriations  or  Ways  and  Means, 
but  in  his  third  term,  during  Keifer's  Speakership  (1881- 
83),  he  began  doing  the  rough-and-tumble  work  of 
the  floor  as  the  bellicose  member  of  the  Committee  on 
Rules,  and  so  quickly  did  his  startlingly  revolutionary 
tactics  succeed  that  in  the  next  Congress,  although 
Keifer  was  the  minority's  candidate  for  Speaker,  Reed 
became  its  acknowledged  leader,  and  ever  after,  so  long 
as  he  served  in  the  House,  remained  the  most  conspicu- 
ous member  of  his  party.  His  power  as  a  floor  leader 
was  in  his  directness,  his  contentiousness,  his  ability  to 
help  men  make  up  their  minds,  and  to  justify  them  in 
following  him.  He  never  scattered.  His  arguments  bore 
directly  on  the  issue  before  the  House  at  the  moment, 
and,  though  he  indulged  sufficiently  in  generalities  to 
give  force  and  side-light  to  his  views,  he  never  fell  into 
vagueness.  No  one  yawned  while  he  was  on  his  feet. 
Perhaps  few  of  his  speeches  will  ever  get  into  school 
readers  or  volumes  of  eloquence,  but  when  spoken  with 
his  sonorous,  forceful  tones  and  unfeigned  earnestness 
infusing  new  life  into  every  debate,  each  one  became  a 
masterpiece. 

Reed's  successor  as  floor  leader  was  Joseph  G.  Can- 
non, of  Illinois.  For  ten  years  he  headed  Appropria- 
tions, and  for  many  years  before  had  fought  in  the  fierc- 
est of  dialectical  battles.  There  were  some  resemblances 
between  him  and  Reed.  Each  was  indifferent  to  studied 


132    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

rhetoric,  contemptuous  of  demagogic  appeals  to  popular 
emotion,  distrustful  of  theorists,  and  cautious  not  to 
overstate.  Both  were  also  slow  to  anger.  But  once 
aroused,  then:  indignation  gave  an  extraordinary  im- 
petus to  their  volition.  Reed's  intellectual  mastery 
controlled  the  House.  His  acknowledged  superiority 
destroyed  opposition.  Cannon  was  not  so  completely 
trusted.  His  influence  came  from  his  power  to  absorb 
the  atmosphere  of  a  situation  and  exhale  it  with  an 
assured  grasp  of  underlying  principles.  He  never  brow- 
beat or  intimidated.  Sarcasm  was  not  among  his  wea- 
pons. He  reasoned  and  smiled,  unbuttoned  his  vest, 
unloosed  the  band  of  his  trousers,  and  then,  with  his  left 
arm  flying  over  his  head,  recalling  David  and  the  sling, 
he  let  fly  a  well-aimed  stone  in  the  shape  of  a  flashing 
fact  that  swiftly  pierced  the  argument  of  an  opponent. 
Whatever  the  wave  that  rolled  in,  he  always  rode  on  its 
crest.  There  was  something  debonair  about  this  West- 
ern "Uncle  Joe,"  who,  with  nothing  but  his  own  native 
wit  and  dauntless  courage,  boldly  faced  any  proposition 
and  all  comers.  As  elsewhere  stated,  Reed  usually  fin- 
ished in  ten  minutes.  Cannon  talked  longer,  but  his 
speeches  had  the  quality  of  finality. 

After  Mr.  Cannon  became  Speaker  (1903-11),  James 
A.  Tawney,  of  Minnesota,  followed  as  chairman  of 
Appropriations  and  Sereno  E.  Payne  continued  at  the 
head  of  Ways  and  Means.  Meantime,  James  R.  Mann, 
of  Illinois,  by  the  closest  and  most  persistent  attention 
to  floor  work,  gradually  won  his  way  to  leadership.  At 
first  his  party  sympathies  seemed  negligible  and  his 
activities  were  resented.  His  amazing  energy  and 


FLOOR   LEADERS  133 

impetus  seemed  to  make  him  a  personal,  zealous,  and 
autocratic  instrument  of  the  Speaker  for  killing  or  re- 
tarding certain  classes  of  bills  that  tapped  the  Treasury, 
compelling  members  benefiting  by  such  legislation  to 
supplement  the  Chair's  recognition  with  a  promise  of 
forbearance  on  the  floor.  This  was  an  entirely  new  de- 
parture in  parliamentary  procedure.  Previously  resent- 
ment or  dyspepsia  had  incited  objection.  But  Mann 
stationed  himself  in  a  front  seat,  displayed  copies  of  all 
bills  reported,  remained  throughout  each  session,  and 
halted  every  comer.  He  was  not  ill-natured  or  capri- 
cious. His  adventurous  action  seemed  to  be  guided  by 
a  judicial  rather  than  a  whimsical  spirit,  and  when  con- 
vinced of  the  propriety  of  a  measure  he  ceased  to  inter- 
vene. But  what  won  the  House  was  the  swiftness  of 
his  vision,  the  accuracy  of  his  knowledge,  and  the 
ruthlessness  with  which  his  quick  questions  and  ready 
replies  disclosed  weakness  or  mischief.  Indeed,  so  wel- 
come and  invaluable  did  his  activities  become  that  upon 
Cannon's  retirement  Mann's  party  selected  him  as  its 
candidate  for  Speaker.  According  to  precedent  this 
made  him  the  titular  as  well  as  the  real  leader  of  the 
minority,  and  the  thoroughness  and  far-seeing  scope 
of  his  preparation  to  thwart  the  policy  of  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority  disclosed  an  initiative  and  intellectual 
energy  which  events  did  nothing  to  weaken. 

Opposed  to  Mann  appeared  Oscar  W.  Underwood,  of 
Alabama,  as  floor  leader  (1911).  Perhaps  no  one  ever 
came  into  great  power  with  less  individual  assertiveness. 
The  choice  of  Champ  Clark  as  Speaker,  who  had  headed 
the  minority  on  Ways  and  Means  in  the  preceding 


134    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

House,  left  Underwood  the  ranking  member  and  without 
a  rival  of  sufficient  strength  to  contest  with  him  for  the 
majority  leadership.  He  brought  to  the  place  an  attrac- 
tive personality.  His  gentle  simplicity,  easy-going  man- 
ners, and  freedom  from  egotism  or  personal  ambition 
seemed  to  deny  the  sense  of  high  purpose  and  firmness 
of  mind  which  his  presence  conveyed.  But  when  he 
spoke,  whether  in  the  committee  room  or  in  the  House, 
he  disclosed  a  masculine  authority.  There  was  nothing 
vivid  or  swift  or  hot  with  passionate  sympathy.  His 
quality  was  intellectual  rather  than  imaginative.  Yet, 
like  other  products  of  modern  political  study,  his  sym- 
pathies were  more  popular  than  his  slow,  measured 
speech,  free  from  artifice  or  appeal,  would  indicate. 
Before  being  installed  as  floor  leader  he  had  won  envied 
prestige  as  a  successful  legislator.  Although  never  serv- 
ing with  the  majority,  or  acting  as  official  leader  of  the 
minority,  he  had  had  a  more  than  usually  valuable  ex- 
perience through  service  on  a  variety  of  committees. 
His  prominence  on  Ways  and  Means  opened  a  path  to 
distinction,  and  he  traveled  it  conscientiously,  speaking 
without  anger  or  sarcasm,  and  apparently  without  the 
slightest  inclination  to  play  the  r6le  of  an  idealist,  or  to 
present  the  visions  of  a  dreamer.  He  saw  real  things  as 
a  practical  business  man  with  a  spacious  understanding 
and  a  sound  judgment.  Of  course,  his  party  believed  in 
him,  and  his  opponents  respected  him.  When  he  sud- 
denly became  floor  leader,  therefore,  the  House  recog- 
nized him  as  the  possessor  of  intellectual  strength,  hav- 
ing the  tolerance  and  patience  of  a  statesman,  and  the 
steadying  power  of  high  character. 


FLOOR  LEADERS  135 

He  had,  too,  an  adventitious  aid  not  shared  by  his 
predecessors;  for,  as  elsewhere  stated,  the  House,  under 
the  rules  adopted  in  the  Sixty-second  Congress  (1911- 
13),  elected  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means  and  endowed  them  with  power  to  appoint 
other  committees.1  This  prerogative  was  the  Speaker's 
greatest  asset,  and  when  transferred  to  Ways  and 
Means  it  gave  Underwood,  the  dominating  head  of  that 
Committee,  a  power  to  control  legislation  not  possessed 
by  former  floor  leaders. 

This  power  he  undoubtedly  exercised  in  making  up 
committees  as  it  had  theretofore  been  exercised  by 
Speakers.  Having  in  mind  the  recognition  due  to  long 
service,  he  also  kept  in  view  the  triumph  of  party  poli- 
cies as  well  as  his  own  success,  and  so  long  as  harmony 
existed  within  his  party  he  was  conspicuously  its  leader. 
But  when,  in  the  preparation  of  his  tariff  bill,  the  Presi- 
dent differed  with  him  as  to  duties  on  sugar  and  on  wool, 
the  former  had  his  way.  So,  too,  on  the  non-payment  of 
tolls  by  coastwise  vessels  using  the  Panama  Canal,  to 
the  support  of  which  he  felt  himself  bound  by  the  ex- 
plicit declaration  of  his  party  platform,  the  President 
easily  bowled  him  and  the  platform  over  together.  In 
other  words,  at  crucial  moments  the  overshadowing 
figure  of  the  President  obscured  that  of  the  floor  leader. 
It  is  doubtful  if  a  Speaker,  possessing  the  power  that 
formerly  belonged  to  that  office,  could,  under  similar 
conditions,  have  accomplished  more.  His  failure  was 
not  due  to  the  unpopularity  of  his  views,  or  to  the  ill-will 
of  his  colleagues,  for  no  disaffection  existed  over  com- 
1  See  chap,  v,  p.  81. 


136    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

mittee  appointments  or  the  management  of  the  business 
of  the  House,  while  it  was  an  open  secret  that  at  least  a 
majority  of  his  party  endorsed  its  platform  both  as  to 
revenue  and  to  tolls.  It  was  simply  the  inability  of  a 
floor  leader,  however  strong  his  personality  or  potent 
the  influence  secured  by  the  rules  and  practice  of  the 
House,  to  resist  successfully  a  dominating  President 
buttressed  by  the  power  of  patronage. l  But  it  is  due  to 
Mr.  Underwood  to  add  that  his  last  overthrow  occurred 
after  his  election  to  the  Senate  precluded  the  possibility 
of  his  succeeding  himself  as  chairman  of  Ways  and 
Means,  thus  leaving  to  members  the  game  of  securing 
post-offices  unfettered  by  the  chance  of  losing  highly 
prized  committee  places  in  the  next  House. 
%  J  For  further  discussion  of  this  power  see  chap,  xvm,  pp.  381, 382. 


CHAPTER  VIH 

PRIVILEGES,   PAY,  AND   OBSEQUIES   OF  MEMBERS 

IF  a  member  be  indicted  for  a  felony  or  other  crime, 
prosecution  is  left  to  the  local  tribunal,  and  in  case  of 
conviction  he  may  be  expelled  from  the  House;  but  if 
the  conviction  occur  before  his  election,  precedents  uni- 
formly deny  the  House  jurisdiction  of  the  offense.  Thus, 
when  one  member  resigned  to  escape  expulsion  and  was 
subsequently  reflected,  the  House  declined  to  act,  for 
the  reason  that  his  constituents  had  reelected  him  with 
full  knowledge  of  his  sin.  "This  has  been  so  frequently 
decided,"  said  Speaker  Carlisle,  "that  it  is  no  longer  a 
matter  of  dispute."  l  When  reelected  at  a  special  elec- 
tion to  the  same  Congress,  however,  the  House  declined 
to  admit  him.2 

A  member's  freedom  from  arrest  applies  to  writs  or 
other  processes  in  civil  suits,  and  continues  only  when 
Congress  is  in  session  and  while  he  is  traveling  to  and 
from  his  home.  The  period  for  such  travel  is  interpreted 
as  a  "convenient  time,"  including  sufficient  opportun- 
ity to  settle  one's  private  affairs  and  to  deviate  from  the 
usual  route  for  rest,  convenience,  or  because  of  family 
sickness.3  Although  conceded  that  a  member  who  re- 
mained at  home  during  a  portion  of  the  session  was 

1  48th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  5750-51. 

2  41st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  4669-74. 

3  24  Fed.  Law  Reporter,  p.  387. 


138    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

neither  in  actual  attendance  on  the  House,  nor  going  to 
or  returning  from  his  home,  it  was  held  that  he  could  not 
be  imprisoned  under  a  mesne  process  in  a  civil  suit,  and 
when  the  House  had  knowledge  of  his  confinement  the 
Speaker  issued  a  warrant  to  the  sergeant-at-arms  com- 
manding him  forthwith  to  take  such  member  from  the 
custody  of  sheriff,  jailer,  or  any  other  person  presuming 
to  detain  him.  This  promptly  opened  the  prison  door.1 
In  like  manner  a  member  arrested  and  imprisoned  dur- 
ing vacation  obtained  his  freedom  upon  the  assembling 
of  Congress. 

An  assault  upon  a  member  is  usually  resented  as  a 
breach  of  privilege.  In  1809  the  House  ignored  the  fact 
that  the  member  assaulted  was  not  in  attendance,  and 
that  the  cause  of  it  in  no  wise  related  to  his  official  du- 
ties.2 A  controversy  over  an  appropriation  bill  between 
two  members  while  on  their  way  to  the  Capitol  in  an 
omnibus,  which  resulted  in  an  assault,  was  regarded  as 
a  breach  of  privilege.  A  celebrated  case  occurred  in 
1866,  when  Josiah  B.  Grinnell,  of  Iowa,  imputed  coward- 
ice to  Lovell  H.  Rousseau,  of  Kentucky,  a  Federal 
general  in  the  Civil  War.  After  adjournment  Rousseau 
assaulted  Grinnell  with  a  cane  in  the  presence  of  three 
members,  who  admitted  their  intention  to  intervene  had 
any  one  interfered.  The  House  disapproved  Grinnell's 
course  as  unjustified,  but  reprimanded  Rousseau  and 
censured  his  friends.  Rousseau  immediately  resigned 
and  was  reflected.  The  next  year  President  Johnson 
appointed  him  a  brigadier-general  in  the  army.  This 

1  39th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Journal,  pp.  103,  105. 

2  llth  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Journal,  pp.  Ill,  123,  147-48. 


PRIVILEGES,  PAY,  AND  OBSEQUIES    139 

smacks  of  the  tension  existing  between  Congress  and  the 
Executive  in  the  days  of  Reconstruction.1 

A  challenge  given  outside  the  House  was  held  to  be  a 
menace,  and  therefore  a  breach  of  privilege.  Speaker 
Winthrop  declared  it  well  understood  that  if  the  life  or 
person  or  liberty  of  a  member  was  menaced  in  any  way 
the  House  could  properly  act.2  Indeed,  the  demand  for 
an  explanation  of  words  spoken  in  debate,  if  made  in 
a  hostile  manner,  was  in  theory  regarded  the  highest 
offense  that  could  be  committed  against  the  House.  For 
this  privilege  the  Commons  of  England  made  their  mem- 
orable resistance  to  the  tyranny  of  Charles  I.  But  hi 
practice  the  challenge  of  one  member  by  another  pro- 
voked little  attention.  In  1838,  when  Jonathan  Cilley, 
of  Maine,  and  William  J.  Graves,  of  Kentucky,  fought 
with  rifles  near  the  boundary  line  of  Maryland  and  the 
District  of  Columbia,  resulting  in  the  death  of  the 
former,  the  report  of  the  committee  of  investigation, 
recommending  the  expulsion  of  Graves,  and  the  censure 
of  Henry  A.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  and  George  W.  Jones,  of 
Tennessee,  who  acted  as  seconds,  was  laid  upon  the 
table  by  a  vote  of  103  to  78.  This  closed  the  lamentable 
incident.  The  evidence  showed  that  James  Watson 
Webb,  editor  of  the  New  York  Courier  and  Inquirer, 
had  stood  sponsor  for  an  article  charging  a  member  with 
corruption,  and  that  Cilley,  in  his  remarks  moving  a 
committee  of  inquiry,  had  reflected  upon  the  character 
of  Webb,  who  sent  him  a  note  by  the  hand  of  Graves. 
Cilley  refused  either  to  receive  it  or  to  assign  any  reason 

1  39th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Gkbe,  pp.  3194,  3544,  3818,  4009-17. 

2  30th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  649. 


140    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

for  declining  it  other  than  that  he  chose  to  be  drawn 
into  no  difficulty.  This  led  to  Graves's  challenge,  which 
Cilley  unwisely  accepted. 

In  the  debate  one  member  declared  the  gravamen  of 
the  charge  rested  in  the  sending  of  the  challenge,  and 
not  in  the  fatal  result.  Another  opposed  the  severity  of 
the  sentence,  claiming  that  dueling  had  been  frequent 
among  members,  and  generally  unnoticed  and  unpun- 
ished by  the  House.  Doubt  was  even  expressed  as  to  its 
being  a  breach  of  privilege,  since  a  rule,  proposing  to 
make  it  so,  failed  of  adoption  in  1809.  The  great  major- 
ity thought  any  punishment  too  severe.  "Graves  may 
have  been  negligent  of  the  privileges  of  the  House," 
said  a  member  of  the  committee,  "  but  he  did  not  inten- 
tionally offer  any  indignity  to  it." l 

The  historic  assault  of  Preston  S.  Brooks,  of  South 
Carolina,  upon  Senator  Sumner,  of  Massachusetts, 
three  days  after  the  latter 's  speech  (1856),  excited  an 
ingenious  argument  that  the  attack,  being  inspired  by 
the  publication  rather  than  by  the  delivery  of  his  re- 
marks, did  not  come  within  the  Constitution,  which 
limited  protection  to  the  delivery  of  a  speech.  Nor  did 
the  House  have  jurisdiction  of  the  case,  since  the  assault 
was  not  made  either  upon  a  member  of  the  House  or 
within  it.  There  was  a  tendency,  too,  to  plead  extenua- 
tion on  the  ground  of  an  excessive  "chivalrous"  spirit, 
although  Clingman,  of  North  Carolina,  defended  "the 
liberty  of  the  cudgel"  and  justified  the  act.  John  H. 
Savage,  of  Tennessee,  claimed  that  Brooks  "merited 
the  highest  commendation,"  and  that  Sumner  "did  not 
1  25th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  200-01,  320,  329. 


PRIVILEGES,  PAY,  AND  OBSEQUIES    141 

get  a  lick  more  than  he  deserved."  Members  of  the  ma- 
jority, denouncing  the  assault  fearlessly,  maintained  the 
power  of  the  House  to  punish  Brooks,  but  the  vote  to 
expel  did  not  reach  the  required  two  thirds. 

The  privilege  as  to  "speech"  is  not  limited  to  words 
spoken  in  debate.  It  applies  to  written  reports,  to  reso- 
lutions offered,  and  to  the  act  of  voting,  if  done  vocally 
or  by  passing  between  tellers.  In  other  words,  a  member 
cannot  be  questioned  or  impeached  in  any  court  or 
place  outside  of  the  House  for  whatever  he  may  do  or 
say  in  relation  to  the  business  before  it.  Speeches  may 
be  calumnious  to  the  last  degree,  or  hazardous  to  the 
public  peace;  yet  their  authors  enjoy  complete  immu- 
nity. Even  a  letter  of  criticism  written  to  a  member,  or 
addressed  to  the  House,  constitutes  a  breach  of  the  priv- 
ilege, although  the  Speaker  held  that  a  communication 
from  a  person  assailed  in  debate,  properly  asking  if  the 
speech  was  correctly  reported,  did  not  come  within  the 
rule.  But  it  is  otherwise  with  disrespectful  communica- 
tions, impugning  or  questioning  the  motives  of  members, 
unless  it  be  an  absurd  anonymous  letter.1 

These  privileges  are  common  to  all  constitutional  gov- 
ernments, and  are  expected  to  give  lawmakers  a  sense  of 
entire  freedom  in  denouncing  wrongdoing,  and  in  pro- 
tecting them  from  arrests  instigated  by  persons  masking 
an  unworthy  design  behind  a  pretended  grievance;  but 
they  are  not  intended  to  license  accusations  founded  on 
guesswork,  or  on  the  mere  vagaries  of  a  morbid  imagina- 
tion, or  without  any  honest  effort  to  get  at  the  facts,  and 
such  malicious  or  reckless  talkers  may  be  called  to  order. 
1  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2501. 


THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

It  is  then  for  the  House  to  determine  whether  "the  lan- 
guage is  justifiable  in  view  of  the  facts  and  evidence 
within  the  knowledge  of  the  House."  l 

If  a  member  attack  through  the  press  another  mem- 
ber in  his  individual  and  not  his  representative  charac- 
ter, no  breach  of  privilege  is  involved.  So,  if  a  member 
outside  the  House  charge  another  member  with  disrepu- 
table conduct  before  he  became  a  member.  It  is  other- 
wise if  the  attack  occurs  in  debate,  for  words  used  upon 
the  floor  become  disorderly  and  the  member  could  prop- 
erly be  punished  therefor.  This  is  upon  the  ground  that 
the  use  of  any  language  upon  the  floor,  derogatory  to  the 
personal  character  of  a  member,  is  calculated  to  provoke 
disturbance  and  disorder  in  the  proceedings,  and  bring 
the  body  itself  into  contempt  and  disgrace.  These  rea- 
sons do  not  apply  to  the  publication  of  the  same  words 
in  a  newspaper.2 

A  newspaper  charge  against  a  member,  to  involve  a 
breach  of  privilege,  must  present  a  specific  and  serious 
attack,  such  as  being  influenced  in  his  action  as  a  repre- 
sentative, or  making  an  unauthorized  committee  report, 
or  receiving  a  sum  of  money  for  securing  a  government 
contract,  or  an  office  for  a  constituent,  or  abusing  the 
franking  privilege,  or  receiving  an  excess  of  mileage,  or 
for  entering  into  a  conspiracy  to  defraud  the  Govern- 
ment; but  not  for  a  mere  criticism  of  his  relations  with 
other  members,  or  for  being  influenced  by  executive 
patronage,  or  for  misreporting  a  speech,  or  printing  re- 
marks that  the  member  denied  using,  or  vaguely  charg- 

1  40th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  2945. 

2  40th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Journal,  pp.  650-53. 


PRIVILEGES,  PAY,  AND  OBSEQUIES    143 

ing  members  generally  with  corruption.  Nevertheless, 
general  charges  against  members  are  frequently  held  to 
involve  a  breach  of  privilege.  Although  no  names  are 
given,  newspaper  allegations  that  certain  members  had 
entered  into  a  corrupt  speculation,  or  had  abused  the 
franking  privilege,  or  had  violated  the  law,  without 
specifying  the  date  of  the  offense,  or  had  been  paid 
money  by  an  agent  of  a  foreign  government,  involve  a 
breach  of  privilege. 

On  the  evidence  of  members  who  testified  as  to  acts 
of  bribery,  the  House  held  the  person  so  charged  guilty 
of  contempt,  and,  after  administering  a  reprimand,  com- 
mitted him  until  further  orders.  To  what  extent  the 
House  may  punish  for  contempt  other  than  its  own 
members,  however,  depends  upon  the  inquiry.  Thus,  the 
Supreme  Court  held  it  could  punish  a  contumacious 
witness  who  refused  to  answer  questions  in  an  investiga- 
tion relating  to  the  integrity  of  its  members,  although 
such  questions  disclosed  the  affairs  of  a  private  citizen; l 
but  when  it  committed  one  for  refusing  (1876)  to  testify 
to  the  history  and  character  of  a  "real-estate  pool"  in 
which  debtors  of  the  United  States  had  an  interest,  the 
court  held  that  if  the  United  States  was  a  creditor  of 
the  defendant  firm,  the  only  legal  redress  was  in  a  resort 
to  the  courts.  "The  Constitution,"  said  the  court,  "ex- 
pressly empowers  the  House  to  punish  its  own  members 
for  disorderly  behavior,  to  compel  their  attendance  upon 
its  sessions,  to  judge  of  their  election  and  qualifications, 
and  to  impeach  officers  of  the  Government,  and  in  per- 
forming these  functions  it  has  the  right  to  compel  the 
1  In  re  John  Anderson,  6  Wheaton,  p.  204. 


144    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

attendance  of  witnesses  and  their  answers  to  proper 
questions  the  same  as  courts  of  justice;  but  no  person 
can  be  punished  for  contumacy  as  a  witness  unless  his 
testimony  is  required  in  matters  over  which  it  has  juris- 
diction." * 

Questions  of  privilege  affect  the  safety  and  dignity  of 
the  House  collectively  as  well  as  the  integrity  of  its 
proceedings,  and  the  rights,  reputation,  and  conduct  of 
members  individually  in  their  representative  character 
only.2  They  relate  among  other  things  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  House;  to  its  power  to  punish  witnesses,  mem- 
bers, and  other  persons  for  contempt;  to  the  protection 
of  its  records  and  files;  the  accuracy  of  its  documents; 
the  seats  of  its  members;  and  the  right  to  declare  vacant 
the  office  of  Speaker.  Thus,  a  charge  touching  the  com- 
fort, convenience,  health,  censure,  or  the  assault  of  mem- 
bers, or  the  conduct  of  an  official  or  employee,  or  the 
violation  of  the  rule  relating  to  admission  to  the  floor,  is 
presented  as  a  question  of  privilege,  and  has  precedence 
of  all  other  questions  except  motions  to  adjourn.3  But  a 
question  of  privilege  must  not  be  confused  with  a  priv- 
ileged question.  The  latter,  which  relates  merely  to  the 
order  of  business,  gains  its  precedence  by  rule,  while  the 
former  springs  from  constitutional  prerogatives  which 
give  the  House  power  to  protect  itself  as  an  organ  for 
action,  and  to  extend  to  members  freedom  to  perform 
their  duties  unmenaced  and  unmolested. 

Nevertheless,  the  powers  of  the  House  enumerated  in 
the  Constitution  must  not  be  confused  with  the  priv- 
ileges of  the  House.  The  right  to  legislate  for  the  general 

1  103  U.S.,  pp.  170-205.  2  Rule  ix.  8  Ibid.t 


PRIVILEGES,  PAY,  AND  OBSEQUIES    145 

welfare  is  among  these  powers,  but  the  proposals  of  laws 
do  not  become  questions  of  privilege;  otherwise,  said 
Speaker  Reed,  "everything  would  become  a  question  of 
privilege  and  end  by  making  nothing  a  question  of  priv- 
ilege." l  For  this  reason  subjects  relating  to  the  rela- 
tions of  the  United  States  with  other  nations  or  peoples 
do  not  constitute  questions  of  privilege  unless  the  inva- 
sion of  some  prerogative  of  the  House  is  alleged.  Hence, 
Speaker  Crisp  held  that  a  resolution  simply  recommend- 
ing the  recall  of  the  United  States  Minister  to  Hawaii  did 
not  involve  a  question  of  privilege.  "Although  the  rela- 
tions of  the  United  States  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands  have 
been  submitted  to  Congress  the  same  as  a  great  many 
other  matters  of  moment,"  he  said,  "  they  do  not  con- 
stitute questions  of  privilege,  but  go  to  a  committee, 
under  our  rules,  to  be  considered  and  reported;  and  even 
then,  unless  expressly  provided  for,  they  are  not  what 
we  know  as  *  privileged  questions.'"  2 

An  early  custom  left  to  the  House  the  decision  whether 
a  proposition  involved  a  question  of  privilege.  Subse- 
quently the  Speaker  determined  it.  But  for  many  years 
an  appeal  from  his  decision  has  put  the  responsibility 
upon  the  House.  Sometimes  a  Speaker  in  giving  a  pre- 
liminary determination  goes  wrong,  but  more  often 
veteran  members  stumble,  although  guiding  precedents 
are  numerous.  So  distinguished  a  floor  leader  as  Thad- 
deus  Stevens  objected  to  Henry  J.  Raymond  presenting 
as  a  question  of  privilege  the  credentials  of  several  claim- 
ants from  Tennessee.  Speaker  Colfax  declared  that  all 

1  55th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  3381. 
8  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2425. 


146    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

decisions  held  the  other  way.1  Quite  likely  Stevens's 
dislike  of  Raymond  rather  than  parliamentary  igno- 
rance inspired  his  objection,  for  he  desired  to  crush  the 
eminent  journalist  who  had  become  the  defender  and 
patronage  dispenser  of  President  Johnson.  Thus,  on 
another  occasion,  Stevens  objected  to  Raymond  being 
furnished  a  pair,  since  the  gentleman  from  New  York, 
he  said,  found  no  difficulty  in  pairing  with  himself. 
Thereupon  an  excited  supporter  of  Raymond  exclaimed 
that  a  member,  to  escape  the  shafts  of  Stevens's  bitter 
sarcasm,  must  "go  it  blind."  This  stirred  Robert  S. 
Hale,  of  New  York,  who,  with  an  innocent  expression, 
inquired  the  meaning  of  the  phrase.  Instantly  Stevens 
flashed  the  retort:  "It  means  following  Raymond." 
This  double  shot  was  the  more  felicitous  as  Hale  him- 
self had  followed  Raymond  in  his  support  of  Johnson. 
A  member  whose  private  interests  are  concerned  in 
any  bill  may  not  vote.  Whether  such  an  interest  be  per- 
sonal is  usually  left  to  the  decision  of  the  member  him- 
self, and,  although  others  may  challenge  his  judgment,  it 
is  interesting  to  note  that  members  have  never  shown  a 
disposition  to  confuse  direct  and  remote  interests.  Thus, 
when  the  renewal  of  the  charter  of  the  United  States 
Bank  came  up  in  1830  members  who  were  stockholders 
promptly  refused  to  vote.  For  the  same  reason  several 
avoided  voting  for  the  bill  extending  the  time  for  com- 
pleting the  Northern  Pacific  Railroad.  Others  who  held 
stock  in  the  Union  and  Central  Pacific  companies  were 
not  less  modest  when  Congress  legislated  upon  their 
payment  of  interest.  Some  of  these  cases  affected  a  class 
1  39th  Cong.,  1st  Sess..  Globe,  p.  81. 


PRIVILEGES,  PAY,  AND  OBSEQUIES    147 

as  distinct  from  individuals,  but  members  raised  no 
opposition. 

When  the  principle  was  applied  to  stockholders  in 
national  banks,  however,  the  House  thought  it  time  to 
fix  a  limit  governing  private  interests.  Their  interest, 
it  was  argued,  is  not  distinct  from  the  general  interest, 
and  in  legislating  on  the  whole  question  they  do  not  act 
for  themselves  any  more  than  do  a  few  pensioned  sol- 
diers who  vote  for  a  general  pension  bill.  Henry  L. 
Dawes  carried  the  matter  a  step  further.  "Shall  the 
right  of  a  member  to  vote  upon  a  duty  on  cotton  goods 
be  challenged  because  he  happens  to  be  a  cotton  manu- 
facturer? If  so,  the  cotton-raiser,  the  sugar-maker,  the 
farmer,  and  every  gentleman  in  this  House  may  have 
such  a  personal  interest  in  a  tariff  bill  that  no  one  can 
vote  for  it."  "One  can  go  through  the  whole  round  of 
business,"  added  Speaker  Elaine,  "and  find  on  this  floor 
gentlemen  who,  in  common  with  many  citizens  outside 
of  this  House,  have  an  interest  in  questions  before  the 
House.  But  they  do  not  have  that  interest  separate  and 
distinct  from  a  class,  and,  within  the  meaning  of  the  rule, 
distinct  from  the  public  interest.  The  Chair,  therefore, 
has  no  hesitation  in  overriding  the  point  of  order."  1 

Nor  is  it  difficult  to  draw  the  line  between  proper  and 
improper  lobbying.  "  To  lobby,"  as  defined  by  Webster, 
"is  to  address  or  solicit  members  of  a  legislative  body  in 
the  lobby  or  elsewhere  away  from  the  House,  with  a 
view  to  influence  their  vote.  This  is  practiced  by  per- 
sons not  belonging  to  the  legislature."  It  is  plain  that 
so  long  as  the  means  employed  "  to  influence  "  are  simply 
1  43d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  S019,  3020, 


148    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

to  enlighten  members  respecting  legislation  before  them 
without  suggesting  or  raising  hope  of  reward,  it  is  not 
only  proper,  but  often  desirable.  Indeed,  the  solicita- 
tion of  constituents  personally  or  by  letter  sometimes 
leads  to  information  of  the  importance  of  certain  legis- 
lation to  one's  district.  Nor  is  it  necessarily  improper 
for  associations  to  raise  funds  for  defraying  the  expense 
of  publishing  literature  and  of  sending  men  to  Washing- 
ton to  present  reasons  for  the  enactment  of  legislation 
beneficial  to  them.  For  many  years  salaried  representa- 
tives of  labor,  remaining  at  the  Capital  throughout  each 
session  of  Congress,  have  endeavored  to  help  or  to  hinder 
bills  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  its  interest.  Attorneys 
of  other  special  interests  frequently  seek  the  attention 
of  members,  and  no  well-informed  person  regards  their 
presentation  of  arguments  as  improper.  They  may  add 
to  a  member's  information  if  they  do  not  influence  his 
action,  and  so  long  as  interviews  are  limited  to  argu- 
ments no  wrong  is  done.  Pending  the  passage  of  a  tariff 
bill  lobby  visitors  are  especially  numerous  and  often  de- 
cidedly annoying.  To  seek  members  again  and  again, 
after  an  argument  has  been  fully  presented,  although 
neither  unmoral  nor  illegal,  becomes  most  wearisome, 
and  often  harmful  to  the  interest  represented.  In  fact, 
the  giving  of  dinners  had  its  origin  in  the  desire  of 
constituents  to  find  a  suitable  opportunity  for  present- 
ing their  views  at  times  when  members  have  leisure  and 
inclination  to  hear.  Although  such  social  occasions  are 
without  the  zone  of  impropriety,  it  is  nevertheless  true 
that  the  later-day  practice  of  flattering  members  and 
their  families  by  invitations  to  dinners,  to  theaters  and 


PRIVILEGES,  PAY,  AND  OBSEQUIES    149 

late  luncheons,  and  on  automobile  rides,  like  the  gift  of 
railroad  passes  in  the  olden  day,  is  obviously  a  sinister 
one.  As  a  rule  these  attentions  go  to  persons  holding 
prominent  committee  positions,  and  it  is  to  their  credit 
that  they  are  disinclined  to  accept  them. 

President  Wilson's  statement  of  May  27,  1913,  pro- 
voked by  the  opposition  to  the  tariff  bill  of  that  year, 
describes  a  lobby  as  "insidious"  when  "newspapers  are 
filled  with  paid  advertisements  calculated  to  mislead 
the  judgment  of  men";  when  "money  without  limit  is 
being  paid  to  sustain  such  a  lobby";  and  when  "great 
bodies  of  astute  men  seek  to  create  an  artificial  opinion 
and  to  overcome  the  interests  of  the  public  for  their 
private  profit."  Very  naturally  an  investigation  fol- 
lowed his  announcement  of  the  existence  of  such  a 
lobby.  It  was  admitted  that  sugar  and  other  interests 
had  raised  money  to  defray  the  expense  of  printing 
literature  and  to  send  their  representatives  to  present 
arguments  to  Congress  explaining  why  the  pending  bill 
would  injure  them.  But  no  corruption  or  attempts  at 
corruption  appeared.  Indeed,  the  opinion  obtained  in 
some  circles  that  the  President  himself  had  been  the 
chief  influence  in  seeking  to  persuade  members  from 
the  exercise  of  their  conscientious  judgment.1 

The  abuse  of  parliamentary  privilege,  as  well  as  the 
unpardonable  conduct  of  some  members,  has  not  infre- 
quently" been  the  occasion  of  bitter  and  sweeping  con- 
demnation. In  several  instances  which  can  readily  be 
brought  to  mind  the  misdeeds  of  a  few  have  caused  the 

1  For  further  discussion  of  the  President's  influence,  see  chap, 
xvni,  pp.  381,  382. 


150    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

whole  membership  to  suffer  in  the  public  mind;  and  yet 
it  is  common  experience,  at  least  as  old  as  Henry  Clay's 
observation,  that  the  longer  one  serves  in  the  House 
the  more  confidence  he  gains  in  the  integrity  of  his 
associates.  Compared  to  the  great  number  whose  lives 
attest  their  probity,  the  faithless  ones  numerically  have 
been  unimportant.  In  the  Forty-first  Congress  (1870) 
a  member  from  North  Carolina  resigned  to  escape  ex- 
pulsion for  selling  a  cadetship.  A  few  years  later  (1876) 
George  F.  Hoar,  of  Massachusetts,  declared  that  he 
had  heard  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs  demand  the  expulsion  of  four  others  for  similar 
conduct.  Yet  for  forty  years  the  repetition  of  such  an 
offense  has  not  been  disclosed.  This  is  the  more  remark- 
able, since  such  appointments  are  highly  prized  and 
often  sought  with  indiscreet  persistency. 

In  1872  the  Credit  Mobilier  scandal,  which  involved 
a  dozen  prominent  members  as  conspicuous  for  integ- 
rity as  for  ability,  filled  the  press  and  the  public  mind 
with  most  distressing  suspicions,  until  it  seemed  as  if 
wrongdoing,  growing  out  of  the  Civil  War,  of  inflated 
values,  and  of  the  sudden  enfranchisement  of  millions 
of  slaves,  had  corrupted  the  whole  House.  But  after 
hearing  the  evidence  the  committee,  composed  of  men 
of  irreproachable  character,  reported  that  with  three 
exceptions  1  the  accused  members,  in  becoming  pur- 
chasers of  Credit  Mobilier  stock,  had  indicated  no  in- 
tention of  even  breaching  the  proprieties.  Of  those 
acquitted  one  afterwards  became  President,  another 

1  Oakes  Ames,  of  Massachusetts,  James  Brooks,  of  New  York,  and 
Schuyler  Colfax,  of  Indiana. 


PRIVILEGES,  PAY,  AND  OBSEQUIES    151 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  several  passed  to  the 
Senate,  while  all  were  returned  to  puh^c  life. 

The  Act  of  1873,  known  as  the  "Salary  Grab  Act," 
very  properly  created  great  popular  indignation.  Its 
baseness  was  in  the  retroactive  clause,  giving  five  thou- 
sand dollars  bonus  to  each  member  of  a  dead  Con- 
gress. Although  the  next  House  immediately  repealed 
the  act,  and  a  majority  of  the  members  refused  to  take 
the  money,  or,  having  taken  it,  promptly  returned  it,  the 
public  classified  its  authors  and  beneficiaries  with  the 
Credit  Mobilier  corruptionists,  whose  avarice  had  out- 
weighed their  sworn  duty  to  safeguard  the  Govern- 
ment's treasury.  Nevertheless,  in  justice  to  those  who 
preceded  and  succeeded  them,  it  should  be  noted  that 
with  this  exception  members  have  hesitated  to  meet 
with  additional  compensation  the  ever-increasing  ex- 
penses in  a  growing  capital  city.  From  1789  to  1818 
their  pay  amounted  to  six  dollars  per  day  for  each  day's 
attendance.  In  the  latter  year  it  was  increased  to  eight. 
In  1856  it  became  $3000  per  year.  Ten  years  later, 
when  gold  held  a  war  premium,  it  was  raised  to  $5000, 
and  forty  years  afterwards  (1906)  to  $7500.  There  are 
also  perquisites.  Travel  between  Washington  and  a 
member's  home  each  year  by  the  usual  route  is  twenty 
cents  a  mile;  stationery  to  the  amount  of  $120  per  year 
is  granted;  an  office  is  furnished;  and  $1500  a  year  al- 
lowed for  a  clerk.  Still  more  important  is  the  franking 
privilege,  which  extends  to  all  letters  on  congressional 
business  and  to  all  documents  prepared  by  the  Govern- 
ment or  published  in  the  Congressional  Record. 

So  long  as  this  privilege  was  confined  to  its  original 


152    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

purpose  of  correspondence  and  the  dissemination  of 
speeches,  it  provoked  little  criticism.  But  in  more  recent 
years,  especially  since  nominations  by  primary  elections 
have  converted  it  into  a  vehicle  of  purely  political 
service,  the  belief  very  generally  obtains  that  it  ought 
to  be  abridged  or  abolished.  By  means  of  it  a  member, 
with  little  or  no  expense  to  himself,  may  circularize  his 
district,  asking  all  voters  to  indicate  such  bulletins, 
documents,  and  seeds  as  they  may  desire.  To  facilitate 
answers,  franked  and  addressed  envelopes  may  be  en- 
closed. The  supplies  are  then  forwarded  under  frank. 
In  other  words,  a  member's  clerk  becomes  the  head  of 
a  campaign  bureau,  with  the  hope  that  franked  favors 
may  induce  grateful  constituents  to  remember  the 
sender  on  primary  and  election  days.  Moreover,  politi- 
cal documents  and  party  appeals,  once  published  in  the 
Record,  immediately  become  frankable,  and  whether 
printed  at  government  or  private  expense  may  be  sent 
out  by  the  ton  from  any  political  headquarters.  In  this 
way  Henry  George's  work,  entitled  "  Progress  and  Pov- 
erty," —  a  book  of  several  hundred  pages,  —  became  a 
public  document  which  admiring  friends  of  the  great 
single-taxer  freely  circulated  at  the  expense  of  the 
Government.  The  burden  upon  the  postal  department 
thus  becomes  unlimited. 

The  funeral  expenses  of  members  are  defrayed  from 
the  contingent  fund  of  the  House.  Originally  the  mile- 
age allowance  limited  such  payments,  but  in  1802  it 
became  the  custom  to  pay  the  entire  expense  if  the 
funeral  was  held  in  Washington.  Later,  such  charges, 
including  those  of  an  attending  committee,  were  paid 


PRIVILEGES,  PAY,  AND  OBSEQUIES     153 

wherever  the  death  and  funeral  occurred.  At  one  time 
these  sad  rites  assumed  the  nature  of  scandalous  junkets, 
and  although  drastic  reforms  have  of  late  years  regu- 
lated the  expense  and  moderated  their  character,  the 
wants  of  attending  committees  are  not  overlooked. 

The  decease  of  a  member  was  formerly  announced  as 
soon  as  the  House  convened,  followed  by  several  im- 
promptu eulogies,  the  adoption  of  suitable  resolutions, 
and  the  selection  of  an  attending  committee.  The  House 
then  adjourned  for  the  day  and  occasionally  until  after 
the  funeral.  As  a  further  mark  of  respect  the  mem- 
ber's desk  was  draped  and  for  thirty  days  members  wore 
a  band  of  crape  on  the  left  arm.  Gradually  this  ceremony 
became  more  perfunctory,  the  announcement,  resolu- 
tions, and  adjournment  being  purposely  delayed  until 
the  close  of  the  day's  business.  Some  weeks  afterward, 
usually  on  Sunday,  a  dozen  or  more  eulogies  are  read 
to  a  few  members,  and  to  the  family  and  friends  who 
occupy  seats  in  the  gallery.  The  custom  of  wearing 
crape  entirely  disappeared  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress 
(1884),  but  the  draping  of  seats  continued  until  the 
removal  of  the  desks  in  1913.  Upon  the  death  of 
Michael  C.  Kerr,  the  only  Speaker  who  died  in  office, 
the  chair  remained  draped  until  his  term  would  have 
expired.  After  the  decease  of  John  Quincy  Adams  the 
entire  hall  remained  draped  for  thirty  days. 

Occasionally  the  funeral  of  a  member,  dying  in  Wash- 
ington, is  held  in  the  hall  of  the  House.  Among  those 
so  honored  were  Jonathan  Cilley,  of  Maine,  who  fell  in 
a  duel  (1838) ;  Lewis  Williams,  of  North  Carolina,  long 
the  "  Father  of  the  House  "  (1842) ;  John  Quincy  Adams, 


154    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

of  Massachusetts,  who  died  in  the  Speaker's  room 
(1848);  William  D.  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania  (1890); 
Nelson  Dingley,  of  Maine  (1899);  and  Sereno  E.  Payne, 
of  New  York  (1915).  Upon  invitation  the  highest  offi- 
cials at  the  seat  of  Government  often  attend  these 
services,  the  order  of  their  entrance  and  the  manner  of 
their  reception  being  fixed  by  rules  governing  all  public 
functions  held  hi  the  House.  As  the  Senate  and  other 
bodies  approach,  the  Speaker  taps  with  his  gavel  and 
members  rise.  Thereupon  the  doorkeeper,  without  ad- 
dressing the  Speaker,  announces,  "the  Vice-President 
and  the  Senate  of  the  United  States";  "the  Chief  Jus- 
tice and  the  Associate  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States";  "the  Ambassadors  and  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Diplomatic  Corps  to  the  United  States"; 
"the  President  and  the  members  of  his  Cabinet."  Each 
body  occupies  the  seats  assigned  it,  the  House  sitting 
on  the  left  of  the  Speaker,  the  Senate  on  the  right,  the 
Supreme  Court  in  front  of  the  Senate,  the  Diplomatic 
Corps  in  front  of  the  House,  and  the  President  and 
Cabinet  in  front  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  General  of 
the  Army  and  the  Admiral  of  the  Navy,  when  present, 
sit  at  the  right  of  the  Diplomatic  Corps.  At  the  fu- 
neral of  John  Quincy  Adams,  the  President  sat  with  the 
Speaker  on  his  right  and  the  Vice-President  on  his  left. 
Only  in  four  instances  has  the  House  taken  action 
upon  the  decease  of  former  members  except  when  pro- 
moted to  the  office  of  President.  In  1883  it  adopted 
resolutions  of  respect  upon  the  death  of  Alexander  H. 
Stephens.  Similar  respect  was  also  shown  former  Speak- 
ers Elaine  (1893),  Reed  (1902)  and  Henderson  (1906). 


CHAPTER  IX 

CREATING  AND   COUNTING  A   QUORUM 

THE  Constitution  provides  that  "a  majority  of  the 
House  shall  constitute  a  quorum  to  do  business."  1  The 
important  question  is,  therefore,  what  constitutes  a 
majority?  Speaker  Clay  held  that  it  was  one  more 
than  one  half  of  all  possible  members.  Thus,  if  an 
apportionment  provided  for  a  total  of  400  members, 
201  constituted  a  quorum.  This  ruling  remained  un- 
questioned until  the  Civil  War  deprived  the  House  of 
many  members.  Thereupon  Speaker  Grow  declared  a 
quorum  to  be  a  majority  of  those  chosen.  Upon  the 
point  that  the  Chair  could  have  no  knowledge  of  the 
members  chosen  except  as  they  appeared  and  qualified, 
the  Speaker  expressly  withheld  an  opinion.  The  Senate 
treated  Grow's  decision  as  meaning  "chosen  and  liv- 
ing," adding  in  1868  the  words,  "and  sworn."  This  ex- 
cluded the  count  of  Senators  elect  from  ten  Southern 
States,  the  existence  of  whose  governments  Congress 
had  declared  illegal.2 

In  the  House  Grow's  decision  seemed  inadequate 
when  vacancies  interfered  with  party  action,  and 
Speaker  Randall,  in  holding  a  quorum  present,  ven- 

1  Art.  i,  sec.  5. 

8  By  the  Act  of  July  19,  1867,  Congress  declared  illegal  the  recon- 
structed State  Governments  in  Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Texas,  and 
Arkansas.  (15  Stat.  L.,  p.  4.) 


156    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

tured  the  opinion,  without  deciding  the  point,  that 
vacancies  necessarily  lessened  the  number  required  to 
make  a  quorum.1  Speaker  Carlisle  treated  this  question 
as  an  open  one.2  But  Speaker  Reed,  disinclined  to  walk 
a  trembling  plank,  sustained  Randall's  suggestion. 
"Prior  to  1861,"  he  said,  "it  had  always  been  held  that 
a  quorum  consisted  of  a  majority  of  all  the  possible 
members.  After  the  rebellion  had  caused  a  large  num- 
ber of  constituencies  to  refuse  to  elect,  it  was  held  (July 
19, 1861)  that  a  quorum  consisted  of  a  majority  of  *  those 
chosen.'  This  language  was  susceptible  of  two  mean- 
ings; first,  of  members  originally  chosen,  and  second,  of 
members  chosen  then  alive.  The  precedents  make  it 
evident  that  the  latter  meaning  was  intended.  Such  was 
the  decision  made  by  the  Senate  in  1861,  Reverdy  John- 
son voting  in  the  affirmative;  and  as  late  as  March  24, 
1886,  that  body,  on  the  death  of  Senator  Miller,  of  Cali- 
fornia, had  its  quorum  reduced  to  thirty-eight.  Mr. 
Randall,  in  the  Record  of  February  25,  1879,  intimated 
that  he  held  the  same  view."  3 

Several  years  later  the  question  arose  whether  mem- 
bers chosen  but  not  sworn  should  be  counted.  After 
reviewing  the  action  of  the  Senate,  which  excluded  those 
not  sworn,  Speaker  Cannon  held  that  when  "the  House 
is  once  organized  a  quorum  consists  of  a  majority  of 
those  members  chosen,  sworn,  and  living,  whose  mem- 
bership has  not  been  terminated  by  resignation  or  by  the 
action  of  the  House."  4  This  decision  seemed  to  cover 

1  45th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  1908. 

2  49th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4338. 

3  51st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  370. 
*  59th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  5354. 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  157 

every  possible  condition,  and  although  the  House,  unlike 
the  Senate,  has  failed  to  embody  it  in  a  rule,  it  is  now 
the  accepted  practice,  and  will  undoubtedly  be  upheld 
by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  if  the  question  is 
ever  submitted  to  it. 

When  the  House  elects  a  President  of  the  United 
States  a  quorum  consists  of  one  or  more  members  from 
two  thirds  of  the  States.  If  the  House  be  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole  one  hundred  make  a  quorum.  This  num- 
ber dates  from  1891.  Prior  to  that  time  the  quorum  of 
the  Committee  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  House. 

The  presence  of  a  quorum  is  always  presumed  unless 
a  member  declares  to  the  contrary.  After  such  a  declar- 
ation the  Speaker  may  count  the  House  if,  immedi- 
ately preceding  the  announcement,  a  yea  and  nay  vote 
showed  a  quorum  present.  This  custom,  which  began 
with  Speaker  Macon,1  continued  without  question  until 
Carlisle  held  that  the  Chair  could  count  only  when  the 
previous  question  had  been  ordered.  Even  if  the  declar- 
ation of  "No  quorum"  came  before  the  reading  of  the 
Journal,  he  held  it  to  be  the  Chair's  duty  to  cause  a  roll- 
call.2  In  1890  Speaker  Reed  counted  a  quorum,  whether 
preceded  by  a  roll-call  or  not,  including  in  his  count  all 
members  in  sight  within  or  without  the  bar. 

But  if  a  count  or  roll-call  discloses  "No  quorum,"  a 
yea  and  nay  quorum  must  appear  before  the  House  can 
proceed  to  business.  To  secure  it  the  doors  are  closed 
and  the  names  of  members  called.  Absentees  for  whom 
no  excuse  is  made  may,  by  order  of  a  majority  of  those 

1  9th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  655. 

2  50th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  9607. 


158    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

present,  be  sent  for  and  arrested  wherever  found.  Dur- 
ing the  absence  of  a  quorum  neither  business  nor  debate 
may  proceed  even  by  unanimous  consent.  Nor  can  the 
point  of  "No  quorum"  be  withdrawn,  or  the  vote  be 
reconsidered,  or  a  motion  for  a  recess  be  entertained, 
although  the  Speaker  may  declare  the  House  in  recess 
when  an  hour  arrives  previously  fixed  for  such  an  inter- 
mission. In  fact,  nothing  is  admissible  in  the  absence 
of  a  quorum  except  motions  to  adjourn,  for  a  call  of  the 
House,  and  to  excuse  absentees. 

The  absence  of  a  quorum  began  making  trouble  after 
John  Quincy  Adams  refused  to  vote  (1832)  when  within 
the  House.  The  rules  required  every  member  present, 
unless  excused,  to  give  his  vote  one  way  or  the  other. 
This  followed  the  practice  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  members  of  the  American  House  cheerfully  com- 
plied with  it.  But  when  the  House  refused  to  excuse 
Adams  from  voting  on  a  motion  to  censure  William  Stan- 
berry,  of  Ohio,  the  former  declined  to  answer  to  his 
name.  In  the  acrimonious  debate  the  dangerous  conse- 
quences sure  to  follow  the  establishment  of  such  a  prece- 
dent received  full  consideration.  Nevertheless,  Adams, 
in  spite  of  remonstrances  and  threats,  stood  firm,  claim- 
ing that  he  acted  from  conscientious  motives.1  A  few 
years  later  the  disastrous  effects  so  clearly  prophesied 
began  to  accumulate,  Adams  himself  being  an  early 
sinner.  "If  only  five  of  the  thirty-four  Whigs  had  had 
the  firmness  to  abstain  from  voting,"  he  wrote,  "the 
majority  would  have  been  compelled  to  adjourn  for 
want  of  a  quorum."  2 
1  22d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  3895.  *  Diary,  vol.  x,  p.  243. 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  159 

This  practice  of  blocking  public  business  by  sitting 
silently  in  one's  seat  deeply  and  quickly  rooted  itself, 
because  the  House  procedure,  then  and  afterward,  re- 
quired that  a  final  vote  must  show  a  quorum  present 
and  voting.  The  House  of  Commons  deemed  the  pres- 
ence of  a  quorum  sufficient  to  establish  the  validity  of 
any  action,  and  American  writers  on  parliamentary  law 
held  likewise.  Crocker,  one  of  the  ablest,  said:  "If  a 
quorum  does  not  vote,  but  is  in  fact  present,  the  secretary 
should  make  entry  in  the  records  that  on  a  count  of  the 
assembly  it  was  found  a  quorum  was  present."  1  It  was 
argued,  too,  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  by 
authorizing  a  smaller  number  than  a  quorum  to  compel 
the  attendance  of  absent  members,  evidently  considered 
attendance  sufficient;  otherwise,  if  more  was  needed, 
they  would  have  provided  it.  Moreover,  the  Constitu- 
tion declares  that  a  majority  of  the  House,  not  a  majority 
voting,  shall  constitute  a  quorum  to  do  business. 

But  these  reasons  availed  nothing.  Under  the  prac- 
tice of  the  House,  the  absence  of  a  quorum  frequently 
occurred  with  two  thirds  of  the  members  present.  The 
absurdity  of  such  a  condition  appealed  to  everybody, 
for  why  order  the  arrest  of  absentees,  if,  after  their 
return,  their  silence  destroyed  their  presence?  Yet 
Speakers  found  reasons  for  declining  to  count  a  quorum. 
Colfax  thought  such  a  procedure  would  be  revolution- 
ary. When  members  in  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress 
resented  the  lack  of  such  a  rule,  Speaker  Blame  begged 
"to  remind  the  House  that  the  principle  has  been  the 
foundation  probably  for  the  greatest  legislative  frauds 
1  Principles  ef  Procedure,  sec.  114. 


160    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ever  committed.  Where  a  quorum,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  Chair,  has  been  declared  present  against  the  result 
of  a  roll-call,  these  proceedings  in  the  different  legisla- 
tures have  brought  scandal  on  their  names.  There  can 
be  no  record  like  the  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays;  and  from 
that  there  is  no  appeal.  The  moment  you  clothe  your 
Speaker  with  power  to  go  behind  your  roll-call  and 
assume  that  there  is  a  quorum  in  the  hall,  why,  gentle- 
men, you  stand  on  the  very  brink  of  a  volcano."  * 

These  positive  declarations,  if  they  chilled  the  advo- 
cates of  reform,  did  not  destroy  belief  that  some  way 
existed  to  secure  a  record  quorum  other  than  by  a  roll- 
call.  In  1880  John  Randolph  Tucker,  of  Virginia,  hav- 
ing the  courage  of  his  great  namesake,  moved  an  amend- 
ment to  the  rules  providing  that  when  a  quorum  fails 
to  respond,  a  call  of  the  House  should  immediately  fol- 
low, and  if  those  present,  voting  and  not  voting,  make  a 
majority,  the  Speaker  should  declare  a  quorum  present.2 
This  suggestion  provoked  ironical  laughter  and  a  speech 
from  James  A.  Garfield.  "Who  shall  control  the  Speak- 
er's seeing?"  he  asked.  "How  do  we  know  that  he  may 
not,  for  his  own  purposes,  see  forty  members  more  than 
are  here?  What  protection  have  gentlemen  when  he 
says  he  sees  a  quorum,  if  he  cannot  convert  that  see- 
ing into  a  list  of  names  on  the  call  of  a  yea  and  nay 
vote?  This  would  let  hi  the  one-man  power  in  a  far  more 
dangerous  way  than  has  ever  occurred  before.  It  would 
enable  him  to  bring  a  dying  man  from  his  sick  bed  into 
this  hall,  and  make  his  presence,  against  his  will,  and,  per- 

1  43d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  1734. 
*  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  575-76. 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  161 

haps,  in  his  delirium,  constitute  a  quorum  so  that  some 
partisan  measure  might  be  carried  out  over  his  body." l 
Garfield  did  not  always  speak  the  last  word.  He  usu- 
ally led  his  party  in  an  attack,  and  afterward  left  the 
discussion  to  others  more  persistent  if  not  more  positive. 
But  in  this  instance  his  rhetorical  broadside  so  quickly 
shattered  Tucker's  proposition  that  when  Eppa  Hunton, 
of  Virginia,  whose  ability  had  won  him  a  place  on  the 
Electoral  ^Commission  in  1877,  supported  Garfield's 
view  of  the  matter,  Democrats  and  Republicans,  exhib- 
iting their  agreement  by  loud  applause,  indicated  that 
no  reason  existed  for  further  argument.  But  Thomas  B. 
Reed,  of  Maine,  then  a  young  member,  just  beginning 
his  second  term,  thought  otherwise.  At  least  he  secured 
the  floor  and  added  a  few  crisp  sentences  that  lifted  him 
at  once  out  of  the  ordinary.  "The  Constitution  idea  of  a 
quorum  is  not  the  presence  of  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers," he  said,  "but  a  majority  of  the  members  present 
and  participating  in  the  business  of  the  House.  It  is  not 
the  visible  presence  of  members,  but  their  judgments 
and  their  votes  that  the  Constitution  calls  for.  This  is  a 
privilege  [to  refuse  to  vote]  of  which  every  minority  has 
availed  itself.  ...  It  is  a  valuable  privilege  for  the  coun- 
try that  the  minority  shall  have  the  right  by  this  extra- 
ordinary mode  of  proceeding  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
country  to  measures  which  a  party,  in  a  moment  of  mad- 
ness and  of  party  feeling,  is  endeavoring  to  force  upon 
the  citizens  of  the  land."  2  This  speech  had  the  ring  of  a 
new  coin.  Garfield  had  reiterated  in  a  wonderful  rhetor- 
ical picture  the  old  familiar  argument  of  over-counting, 
1  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  576.  « >  «  Ibid.,  p.  578. 


162    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

a  danger  to  which  Elaine  had  impressively  referred  in  his 
nervous,  excitable  manner.  But  Reed  found  a  deeper 
reason.  Even  if  a  Speaker  counted  honestly  the  princi- 
ple was  wrong.  The  mere  presence  of  a  member  was 
nothing.  The  Constitution  demanded  his  "judgment 
and  vote."  Moreover,  he  characterized  the  refusal  to 
vote  as  highly  patriotic,  since  it  tended  to  alarm  the 
country  whenever  a  party,  in  a  moment  of  madness, 
sought  to  harm  the  people.  Thus  did  Reed  become  the 
determined  defender  of  a  "disappearing  quorum." 

In  the  mean  time  this  favorite  form  of  obstruction 
spread  over  the  country,  invading  state  legislatures, 
municipalities,  school  boards,  and  even  church  assem- 
blies. The  silent  member  thought  himself  a  destruction- 
ist  as  well  as  an  obstructionist.  Finally  the  courts  spoke. 
In  New  Hampshire  it  was  held  that  "the  exercise  of  the 
lawmaking  power  is  not  to  be  stopped  by  the  mere  silence 
and  inaction  of  some  of  the  lawmakers  who  are  present." 
The  court  in  Indiana,  expressing  the  same  view,  de- 
clared "the  rule  we  have  asserted  is  a  very  old  one." 
Courts  in  Maine,  Illinois,  Tennessee,  Ohio,  and  Ken- 
tucky gave  similar  decisions.  The  rules  of  judicatories 
adopted  by  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  de- 
clared that  "silent  members"  must  be  considered  as 
acquiescing  with  the  majority. 

Other  parliamentary  bodies  rebelled  against  such 
obstruction.  In  1883  the  Democrats,  controlling  the 
New  York  Senate,  wished  to  remove  the  commissioner 
of  the  capitol,  and  when  Republican  senators  main- 
tained silence,  David  B.  Hill,  then  lieutenant-governor 
and  president  of  the  Senate,  made  a  quorum  by  counting 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  163 

those  present  who  refused  to  vote.  It  is  peculiarly  the 
duty  of  the  president,  he  said  in  substance,  to  see  if  a 
quorum  is  present.  His  certificate  must  evidence  that 
fact.  No  precise  method  is  prescribed  as  to  how  he  shall 
ascertain  it,  and  no  law  makes  the  roll-call  its  only  evi- 
dence. The  presence  of  senators  is  a  physical  fact,  known 
to  the  president  and  to  the  clerk.  If  they  vote,  he  is 
bound  to  make  a  record  of  it,  and  if  they  are  present  and 
refuse  to  vote,  he  should  make  a  record  of  that  fact  also. 
If  a  stranger  occupies  a  senator's  seat  and  responds  to 
his  name,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  clerk  not  to  record  the  vote 
and  of  the  president  not  to  allow  it  to  be  recorded.  The 
presence  or  absence  of  a  response,  therefore,  is  not  abso- 
lutely conclusive.  Whether  a  senator  is  present  and  re- 
sponds is  a  question  for  the  observation  of  the  officers  of 
the  Senate.  If  they  refuse  to  vote,  they  are  not  absen- 
tees, because  they  are  in  fact  present.  No  proceeding 
can  be  instituted  to  compel  their  attendance,  because 
they  are  not  absent,  and  if  really  absent,  why  compel 
their  presence  if  silence  makes  them  in  effect  still  ab- 
sent? l 

This  able  ruling  attracted  little  attention  at  the  time. 
Opposition  senators  called  it  "a  Democratic  trick." 
Several  journals  thought  it  a  "partisan  ruling,"  one 
paper  suggesting  that  "at  least  one  of  the  reform  may- 
ors advanced  to  high  office  last  fall  has  already  proved 
a  failure."  2  But  it  provoked  no  discussion  of  the  prin- 
ciple involved.  Indeed,  it  would  probably  have  passed 

1  Delivered  March  13,  1883,  and  read  to  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives on  January  30,  1890.    See  51st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp. 
952-53. 

2  New  York  Times,  March  14,  1883. 


164    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

unnoticed  had  not  the  measure  legislated  a  Republican 
out  of  office. 

Two  years  later  the  Tennessee  Assembly,  in  which 
two  thirds  of  the  members  constituted  a  quorum,  fol- 
lowed this  precedent.  A  Republican  minority  of  more 
than  one  third  refused  to  vote  for  a  new  registration  law, 
and  the  Speaker,  directing  the  clerk  to  count  those 
present  not  voting,  declared  the  bill  duly  passed. 

These  precedents  had  no  influence  in  the  National 
House.  In  fact,  Carlisle's  administration  tended  to  en- 
courage the  "disappearing  quorum."  On  one  occasion, 
when  a  few  members  reduced  the  proceedings  to  roll- 
calls  for  eight  consecutive  days,  he  refused  to  count  the 
House  unless  the  previous  question  had  been  ordered, 
holding  that  a  yea  and  nay  vote  must  answer  every 
shout  of  "No  quorum."  At  times  conditions  became 
pitiable.  Never  was  man,  in  mind  and  spirit,  more  heart- 
ily and  vividly  and  incessantly  alive  than  Carlisle.  Al- 
though holding  himself  under  stoical  self-control,  he 
liked  fighting.  Discussion  and  argument  were  his  de- 
light, and  being  a  confirmed  intellectualist  he  stood 
rocklike  by  his  intellectual  conclusions.  This  explains 
his  apparent  helplessness  in  the  absence  of  a  quorum. 
He  sincerely  believed  a  visible  presence  insufficient  until 
it  became  an  answering  one,  and  rather  than  surrender 
this  conclusion,  he  preferred  roll-calls  and  humiliating 
delays. 

Thomas  B.  Reed  probably  reached  the  intellectual 
conclusion,  which  he  announced  in  1880  and  reaffirmed 
in  1882,  as  carefully  as  Carlisle  arrived  at  his;  but  when 
he  became  Speaker,  with  a  majority  of  less  than  a  dozen 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  165 

votes,  he  knew  that  a  quorum  could  rarely  if  ever  be 
marshaled  to  overcome  a  filibuster.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances it  is  not  strange,  perhaps,  that  he  evidenced 
the  disposition  that  controlled  him  in  the  Forty-seventh 
Congress.1  It  is  not  known  just  when  he  made  up  his 
mind  to  count  a  quorum.  The  need  of  reform  during 
Carlisle's  Speakership  affected  him  deeply,  and  although 
he  gave  no  sign  of  having  modified  his  views  until  John 
Dalzell,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  January  30,  1890,  called  up 
the  contested  election  case  of  Smith  vs.  Jackson,2  he  had 
grown  slowly  into  the  conviction  that  the  traditional 
procedure  had  broken  under  the  strain  of  increased  busi- 
ness. Only  the  fear  that  his  own  party  might  not  sustain 
him  brought  embarrassment,  and  in  that  event  he  had 
determined  to  resign,  retire  from  the  House,  and  prac- 
tice law  in  New  York,  entering  the  office  of  Elihu  Root.3 
Dalzell's  service  began  in  the  preceding  Congress. 
He  had  already  won  high  distinction  at  the  Pittsburg 
bar,  and  his  whole  career  in  the  House  during  twenty- 
six  years  was  destined  to  become  one  long  parliamentary 
success.  Even  at  this  early  date  he  could  hold  his  own 
against  any  antagonist,  and  when  he  made  his  motion 
to  take  up  the  Smith-Jackson  case,  he  opened  the  storm- 
iest and  most  violent  scenes  in  the  history  of  Congress. 
Crisp  raised  the  question  of  consideration,  and  the  roll- 
call  showed  162  voting,  three  less  than  a  quorum.4  Im- 

1  See  chap,  x,  p.  197. 

8  See  chap,  xvi,  p.  326. 

8  Samuel  W.  McCall,  Life  of  Thomas  B.  Reed,  p.  167. 

4  The  House  consisted,  after  the  death  of  William  D.  Kelley,  of 
Pennsylvania,  of  329  members,  a  quorum  being  165.  51st  Cong.,  1st 
Sess.,  "Record,  p.  922. 


166    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

mediately  came  the  cry  of  "No  quorum!"  Thereupon 
Speaker  Reed  directed  the  clerk  to  note  upon  the  Journal 
the  names  of  41  members  whom  he  reported  present  and 
refusing  to  vote.  Upon  that  record  he  declared  a  quorum 
present  and  the  consideration  of  the  election  case  in 
order.  In  his  ruling  the  Speaker  referred  to  the  New 
York  and  Tennessee  precedents,  to  the  Speaker's  prac- 
tice in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  especially  to  the  real 
scope  of  the  Constitution  compelling  the  attendance  of 
members.  "It  is  a  question,"  he  declared,  "simply  of 
the  actual  presence  of  a  quorum,  and  the  determination 
of  that  is  entrusted  to  the  presiding  officer  in  almost  all 
instances.  There  is  a  provision  in  the  Constitution  which 
declares  that  the  House  may  establish  rules  for  compel- 
ling the  attendance  of  members.  If  members  can  be  pres- 
ent and  refuse  to  exercise  their  functions  and  cannot  be 
counted  as  a  quorum,  that  provision  would  seem  to  be 
entirely  nugatory.  Inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  pro- 
vides for  their  attendance  only,  that  attendance  is 
enough.  If  more  was  needed,  the  Constitution  would 
have  provided  for  more." 

To  excuse  his  speech  made  in  1880,  he  referred  to  the 
Tucker  amendment,  adding  that  "  the  evils  which  have 
resulted  from  the  other  course  were  not  then  as  apparent 
as  now,  and  no  such  careful  study  had  been  given  the 
subject  as  has  been  given  to  it  since."  Then,  as  a  sort 
of  appendix  to  his  decision,  he  caused  to  be  read  the  full 
text  of  Lieutenant-Go vernor  Hill's  opinion.1  An  appeal 
from  this  ruling  again  showed  the  absence  of  a  quorum. 
Thereupon  the  Speaker,  without  hurry  or  hesitation, 
1  51st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  949-60. 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  167 

repeated  his  former  action  of  counting  those  present 
who  failed  to  vote.  He  also  declined  to  entertain  further 
appeal  on  the  ground  of  its  being  dilatory,  suggesting 
that  the  precedent  had  been  fully  established. 

After  this,  pandemonium  reigned  in  the  House  for 
several  hours.  Excited  members  rushed  through  the 
aisles,  filled  the  area  in  front  of  the  clerk's  desk,  and 
threateningly  ascended  the  steps  toward  the  Speaker, 
denouncing  him  as  "tyrant"  and  "czar."  In  Elaine's 
phrase  it  seemed  as  if  the  House  "stood  on  the  very  brink 
of  a  volcano."  To  those  who  witnessed  the  commotion 
it  recalled  Macaulay's  description  of  a  disturbance  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  "I  have  never  seen  such  un- 
seemly demeanor  or  heard  such  scurrilous  language  in 
Parliament,"  wrote  the  distinguished  historian.  "Lord 
Norreys  was  making  all  sorts  of  noises.  Lord  Maid- 
stone  was  so  ill-mannered  that  I  hope  he  was  drunk.  At 
last,  after  much  grossly  indecent  conduct,  a  furious  out- 
break took  place.  O'Connell  was  so  rudely  interrupted 
that  he  used  the  expression  *  beastly  bellowings.'  Then 
rose  such  an  uproar  as  no  mob  at  Covent  Garden  The- 
ater —  no  crowd  of  Chartists  in  front  of  a  hustings  — 
ever  equaled.  Men  on  both  sides  stood  up,  shook  then* 
fists,  and  bawled  at  the  top  of  their  voices.  O'Connell 
raged  like  a  mad  bull.  ...  At  last  the  tumult  ended 
from  a  physical  weariness.  It  was  past  one,  and  the 
steady  bellowers  had  been  howling  since  six  o'clock."  l 

Reed  had  led  the  minority  for  eight  years.  His  know- 
ledge of  the  House  procedure,  his  acquaintance  with 
Opposition  leaders,  and  his  experience  in  playing  the 
1  Diary,  Thursday,  June  11,  1840. 


168    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

parliamentary  game  to  the  limit,  thoroughly  equipped 
him  for  such  a  contest,  and  although  excitement 
changed  to  exasperation  and  language  dropped  at  times 
to  the  level  of  a  brothel,  he  gave  no  evidence  of  disturb- 
ance, much  less  of  fear.  In  one  of  his  impressive  appear- 
ance, giant-like  stature,  and  deep,  penetrating  gaze,  it 
was  impossible  to  imagine  the  existence  of  such  a  quality 
even  had  a  gun  been  leveled  at  his  head.  Nor  could  one 
discern  in  gesture  or  in  accent  the  slightest  sign  of  re- 
sentment. He  counted  coolly,  he  listened  patiently,  and 
he  spoke  pleasantly,  using  the  lower  tones  of  his  voice, 
which  were  of  great  sweetness.  "I  deny  your  right,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  count  me  as  present,  and  I  desire  to  read  from 
the  parliamentary  law  on  that  subject,"  shouted  a  mem- 
ber as  he  held  up  the  book  in  his  hand.  With  his  custom- 
ary coolness  and  drawl,  Reed  replied:  "The  Chair  is 
making  a  statement  of  fact  that  the  gentleman  from 
Kentucky  is  here.  Does  he  deny  it?  "  This  simple  ques- 
tion and  the  laughter  that  followed  indicated  the 
strength  of  his  position.  In  fact,  he  acted  as  one  inspired 
by  the  consciousness  not  only  of  being  right,  but  of  feel- 
ing sure  that  his  loudest  and  most  riotous  opponent 
would  in  time  approve  and  follow  the  new  departure. 
Nevertheless,  when  resting  for  brief  intervals  in  the  se- 
clusion of  his  private  room,  he  relieved  himself  of  a 
pent-up  fury  that  struck  terror  to  the  heart  of  Amos  L. 
Allen,  his  amiable  college  classmate  and  devoted  clerk. 
After  such  an  exhibition  of  feeling  it  seemed  unhuman 
that  he  could  again  preside  with  gentle,  calm  firmness. 
But  as  he  began,  so  he  continued  to  the  end,  betraying 
no  sign  of  the  unquenchable  fire  within,  except  that 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  169 

occasionally,  with  a  powerful,  strident  voice,  reaching 
the  farthest  corner  of  the  great  chamber,  he  dropped  a 
sentence  of  destructive  ridicule,  which,  for  the  moment 
at  least,  stilled  the  uproar  and  threw  his  party  support- 
ers into  cheers. 

Nevertheless,  Reed's  procedure  opened  the  door  to 
honest  criticism.  His  speech,  in  1880,  stoutly  reaffirmed 
in  1882,  made  his  present  action  a  parliamentary  somer- 
sault. Indeed,  the  House  had  never  witnessed  a  more 
picturesque  exhibition  of  such  mental  gymnastics.  The 
suddenness  of  his  conversion,  too,  impressed  members 
who  had  long  abhorred  the  disappearing  quorum  as  an 
insincere  performance,  otherwise  he  must  have  previ- 
ously said  a  word,  at  least,  in  discouragement  of  the 
practice.  If  it  had  reached  the  dignity  of  a  national 
scandal  in  1890,  as  he  intimated,  it  certainly  merited 
rebuke  in  1889,  when  it  paralyzed  business  under  Speaker 
Carlisle.  Thus  his  former  silence,  contrasted  with  his 
present  activity,  credited  him  with  simply  playing  a 
necessary  partisan  game,  inspired  neither  by  principle 
nor  patriotism.  His  adversaries,  measuring  the  effect  of 
this  advantage,  made  merry  at  his  expense,  quoting  his 
own  words  in  defense  of  their  noisy  demonstrations. 
Once,  when  too  jubilant,  his  demand  for  order  brought 
out  loud  shouts  of  derisive  laughter. 

The  scope  of  his  ruling  did  not  relieve  his  embarrass- 
ment. It  answered  neither  the  objection  of  Garfield  nor 
his  own  potent  suggestion  that  "it  is  not  the  visible 
presence  of  members,  but  their  judgments  and  their 
votes  that  the  Constitution  calls  for."  If  this  was  true 
in  1880,  why  did  it  not  apply  in  1890?  Nor  did  his  deci- 


170    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

sion  disclose  a  thorough  study  of  the  subject.  He  made 
no  reference  to  the  numerous  court  decisions  touching 
the  silence  or  inaction  of  members,  or  to  the  decrees  of 
church  assemblies.  His  declaration,  too,  that  the  minor- 
ity denied  the  right  of  the  majority  to  rule  was  evasive, 
since  the  only  quorum  in  evidence  was  created  by  count 
and  not  by  votes.  It  was  evident,  also,  that  reliance  on 
the  New  York  precedent  had  not  materially  strength- 
ened his  position,  for  Governor  Hill's  tortuous  political 
course  did  not  commend  his  methods  to  the  discriminat- 
ing student. 

But  the  severest  strictures  clustered  about  his  failure 
to  adopt  a  code  of  rules  upon  the  organization  of  the 
House.  This  was  the  traditional  course  observed  for 
fifty  Congresses,  and  his  procedure  under  general  par- 
liamentary law,  without  deigning  to  assign  a  reason, 
gave  rise  to  much  speculation.  It  also  emphasized  the 
charge  of  exercising  doubtful  powers.  With  a  code  once 
adopted,  it  was  said,  obedience  would  become  a  plain 
duty  and  filibusters  would  be  put  in  the  wrong.  But  the 
absence  of  specific  rules  authorizing  his  parliamentary 
changes  strengthened  the  position  of  the  minority,  which 
claimed  that  the  House,  being  without  a  constitutional 
quorum,  was  doing  business  simply  on  the  Speaker's 
declaration,  based  upon  what  he  thought  he  saw.  Gar- 
field's  telling  sentences,  delivered  in  1880,  became  the 
minority's  keynote.  The  accidental  counting  of  one  or 
two  absent  members  by  a  temporary  occupant  of  the 
chair  emphasized  the  great  orator's  question,  "How  do 
we  know  that  he  may  not  see  forty  members  more  than 
are  here?  "  Against  such  procedure  a  portion  of  the  inde- 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  171 

pendent  press  arrayed  itself.  "To  such  methods,"  said 
the  Nation,  "we  advise  every  kind  of  opposition  short 
of  violence.  Members  are  bound  to  obstruct  by  all 
peaceable  means  the  transaction  of  business  until  rules 
are  adopted,  and  to  protest  against  the  Speaker's  con- 
duct, persistently  and  vociferously,  whenever  the  occa- 
sion arises."  l 

Nevertheless,  throughout  the  long  and  exciting  daily 
sessions  the  Speaker  displayed  a  consciousness  that  the 
Constitution  contemplated  such  a  procedure,  and  that 
the  country's  business  required  it.  Besides,  the  open 
avowal,  voiced  in  his  decision,  that  he  had  learned  by 
experience  to  disdain  the  consistency  which  conceals 
conscientious  changes  in  judgment,  recalled  a  former 
declaration  made  under  similar  conditions.  "I  do  not 
promise  members  to  give  them  wisdom  of  adamant,"  he 
said.  "  I  do  not  promise  them  I  shall  not  change  my  opin- 
ion when  I  see  good  reason  for  doing  it.  I  only  promise 
that  I  will  give  them  honestly  what  my  opinion  is  at  the 
time.  They  must  take  their  chances  of  its  being  for 
eternity."  2  This  equaled  the  high  display  of  judicial 
equipoise  exhibited  by  Lord  Chancellor  Hardwicke 
when  he  said:  "These  are  the  reasons  which  incline  me 
to  alter  my  opinion,  and  I  am  not  ashamed  of  doing  it, 
for  I  always  thought  it  a  much  greater  reproach  to  a 
judge  to  continue  in  his  error  than  to  retract  it."  It 
added  to  Reed's  prestige,  moreover,  that  no  one  could 
compete  with  him  in  parliamentary  authority.  Randall 
died  in  April,  1890,  and  Carlisle  passed  to  the  Senate  in 
the  following  month.  Although  Reed  himself  had  been 

1  February  6,  1890.          »  49th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  210. 


172    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

in  the  House  but  twelve  years,  so  rapidly  do  changes 
occur  that  only  twelve  of  the  three  hundred  and  twenty- 
nine  members  had  preceded  his  entrance. 

Of  these  twelve  veterans  none  regarded  the  new  pro- 
cedure when  finally  established  as  extremely  offensive. 
It  curbed  an  impulsive  minority  quick  to  resent  fancied 
snubs,  but  by  eliminating  delay  it  increased  the  time  for 
discussion  and  made  the  work  easier.  With  a  flush  of 
energy,  however,  opponents  of  the  drastic  innovation 
noisily  resisted  its  withering  influence.  Charles  F.  Crisp, 
of  Georgia,  with  a  keen  intuition  of  popular  impulses, 
seized  the  opportunity  to  lead  his  party  as  the  apologist 
if  not  the  champion  of  a  disappearing  quorum.  Indeed, 
he  evinced  such  a  bold  and  steady  hostility  to  the  Reed 
Rules  that  in  the  next  Congress  it  opened  his  way  to 
the  Speakership.  His  election  restored  the  old  proce- 
dure and  his  large  majority  enabled  him  to  avoid  the 
long,  dreary  interruptions  occasioned  by  a  disappearing 
quorum,  which  saddened  the  closing  years  of  Carlisle's 
service.  Even  in  the  Fifty-third  Congress  the  Speaker's 
party  had  thirty-eight  more  than  a  quorum.  But  sick- 
ness, repair  of  political  fences,  and  other  causes  for  ab- 
sence had  dissipated  this  advantage  by  March,  1894, 
and  when  Reed  discovered  it,  he  determined  to  force 
Crisp  to  count  a  quorum.  For  three  years  he  had  sought 
such  an  opportunity.  Moreover,  he  was  just  the  man  to 
lead  in  a  contest  of  that  character.  It  inspired  if  it  did 
not  justify  audacity,  gave  him  a  chance  to  use  his  re- 
markable power  of  sarcasm  and  rhetoric,  and  made  the 
goal,  if  he  reached  it,  a  monument  to  his  parliamentary 
skill  and  courage. 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  173 

The  struggle  centered  in  an  effort  to  stop  the  approval 
of  the  Journal.  Until  its  approval  no  business  could  be 
transacted.  Another  advantage  consisted  in  the  right  of 
one  fifth  of  the  members  to  demand  a  yea  and  nay  roll- 
call.  By  refusing  to  vote  for  approval,  therefore,  the  mi- 
nority could  break  a  quorum,  while  by  creating  one  on 
a  call  of  the  House  the  question  immediately  recurred 
on  the  approval  of  the  Journal.  This  proved  an  endless 
chain.  The  absence  of  a  quorum  compelled  a  call  of  the 
House,  and  as  often  as  this  established  a  quorum,  it  was 
broken  on  a  vote  to  approve.  Thus,  day  after  day  Reed 
kept  the  House  in  continual  roll-calls  unless  it  preferred 
to  adjourn,  and  adjournment  did  not  avoid  approving 
the  Journal. 

This  condition  sorely  vexed  the  Speaker.  He  had 
staked  everything  to  avoid  a  count.  Motions  were  de- 
clared dilatory,  points  of  order  were  decided  without 
giving  reasons,  and  appeals  were  denied.  Threats  of 
arrest,  the  employment  of  additional  deputy  sergeants- 
at-arms,  and  appeals  to  absentees,  testified  to  his  efforts 
to  collect  a  quorum.  But  nothing  availed  him.  Indeed, 
Crisp  was  as  helpless  as  Sir  Robert  Peel  on  the  night  that 
Disraeli  divided  his  party.  No  rule  could  save  him, 
since  Reed  acted  under  a  provision  of  the  Constitution, 
and  no  special,  order  could  be  secured  until  a  quorum 
could  be  marshaled.  According  to  William  M.  Springer, 
of  Illinois,  one  of  the  Speaker's  busiest  lieutenants,  "two 
days  of  actual  work  were  not  accomplished  in  a  month." l 
In  fact,  Charles  Stewart  Parnell  never  had  the  House 
of  Commons  more  at  his  mercy  than  Thomas  B.  Reed 
1  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess..  Record,  p.  4666. 


174    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

had  the  House  of  Representatives.  Yet,  if  so  disposed, 
Speaker  Crisp,  like  Speaker  Brand  of  the  British  House, 
had  power  to  end  the  tie-up.  But  he  still  hesitated.  He 
sought  to  find  a  way  of  his  own  invention,  and  one  morn- 
ing his  Committee  on  Rules  proposed  the  plan  of  fining 
all  unexcused  members  ten  dollars  each  whenever  they 
failed  to  vote  on  the  question  of  approving  the  Journal.1 
This  was  parliamentary  if  not  manly,  and  it  quickly 
drew  a  shattering  shot  from  Reed.  Fixing  his  eyes  on 
the  Speaker,  he  declared  that  "gentlemen  ought  to  be 
able  to  do  their  work  without  turning  this  House  into  a 
justice  of  the  peace  shop,  with  ten  dollars  jurisdiction, 
less  than  one  half  we  have  in  the  little  State  of  Maine."  2 
The  prolonged  laughter,  which  ran  into  shouts  of  ap- 
plause, made  the  silence  that  followed  oppressive,  for  no 
one  could  muster  a  reply.  The  next  evening  the  major- 
ity held  a  caucus.  All  admitted  that  business  could  not 
longer  go  on  under  such  conditions,  and  in  the  absence 
of  some  new  device  it  was  agreed  that  the  Speaker,  be- 
fore every  roll-call,  should  appoint  two  tellers,  one  from 
each  side,  who  should  note  those  present  refusing  or  fail- 
ing to  vote,  and  upon  their  report  the  Chair  should  de- 
clare a  quorum  present.3 

This  wastheReed  Rule.Jt  differed  slightly  in  method, 
but  it  counted  a  quorum.  Reed  noted  the  members 
present  who  did  not  vote  and  announced  a  quorum. 
Crisp  appointed  two  tellers  for  the  purpose  and  upon 
their  report  announced  a  quorum.  In  other  words,  the 
caucus  had  surrendered  to  the  minority,  and  the  decision 

1  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4501.  *  Ibid.,  p.  4510. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  4660  (April  16,  1894). 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  175 

that  followed  proved  a  threnody.  Benjamin  E.  Rus- 
sell, of  Georgia,  a  new  member,  declared  it  ridiculous 
for  his  party,  with  thirty-eight  members  more  than  a 
quorum,  to  invoke  such  an  exceptional  and  revolution- 
ary measure.1  Others  expressed  similar  views.  William 
Jennings  Bryan,  then  serving  his  second  and  last  term 
in  the  House,  opposed  it  because,  contrary  to  the  law  in 
many  States,  it  permitted  the  fraction  of  a  majority  to 
coin  a  bill  into  law.  This  objection  appeared  in  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention,  some  preferring  that  more  than 
a  majority  ought  to  be  required  for  a  quorum,  and  in 
particular  cases,  if  not  in  all,  more  than  a  majority  of 
a  quorum  for  a  decision.  But  the  Constitution  simply 
requires  that  a  majority  shall  constitute  a  quorum,  thus 
leaving  the  decision  of  a  question  to  the  majority  of  that 
quorum.  It  sometimes  happens  that  "a  minority  of  a 
quorum"  decides  a  question.  This  occurs,  of  course, 
only  when  the  majority  of  a  quorum,  by  its  silence, 
allows  it. 

The  speech  of  Constantine  B.  Kilgore,  of  Texas,  also 
attracted  attention.  Although  not  in  any  sense  an  elo- 
quent speaker,  Kilgore  was  fluent,  positive,  and  rather 
droll.  It  did  not  occur  to  him  that  there  could  be  two 
sides  to  any  matter  of  discussion.  In  opposing  the  Reed 
Rule  he  had  been  ably  active,  and  the  vigorous  applause 
which  now  greeted  his  recognition,  advised  the  House 
that  his  views,  if  singular  even  to  the  verge  of  being 
Quixotic,  |ound  favor  in  the  galleries  as  well  as  on  the 
floor.  Rules,  he  said,  should  be  made  not  to  expedite 
business,  but  to  hinder  hasty  and  inconsiderate  legisla- 
1  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4666. 


176    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

tion.  Important  and  necessary  measures  need  no  aid 
from  rules.  It  is  the  pernicious  bill  in  the  interest  of  jobs 
and  schemes  of  plunder  that  need  despotic  methods  like 
the  proposed  rule,  which  enables  a  Speaker  and  the  tel- 
lers, if  only  ninety  members  vote  for  a  measure,  to  pass 
it  by  counting  eighty-nine  indifferent  men  who  happen 
to  be  walking  through  the  hall  or  sitting  silently  in  their 
seats.  He  believed  in  bridling  the  majority  and  conserv- 
ing the  rights  of  the  minority.1 

While  it  is  improbable  that  a  majority  of  the  Speak- 
er's supporters  held  the  views  expressed  by  Kilgore,  only 
a  few  of  his  party  gave  the  resolution  hearty  support. 
The  question  is,  said  Springer,  of  Illinois,  whether  this 
House  shall  have  rules  that  will  enable  it  to  do  business, 
and  "I  shall  hail  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  as  the 
dawn  of  a  new  and  better  era  in  American  legislation."  2 
Outhwaite,  of  Ohio,  spoke  in  a  similar  vein,  "rejoicing 
that  the  rule  will  deprive  a  dozen  or  two  members  from 
obstructing  business."  3  The  Republicans,  massed  and 
silent,  watched  the  surrender  with  evident  enjoyment. 
Even  Reed  declined  to  speak  on  the  general  subject, 
simply  remarking  that  "this  scene  to-day  is  a  more  effec- 
tive address  than  I  could  make.  The  House  is  about  to 
adopt  the  principle  for  which  we  contended  under  cir- 
cumstances which  show  its  value  to  the  country.  I  con- 
gratulate it  upon  the  wise  decision  it  is  about  to  make."  4 

It  remained  for  Thomas  C.  Catchings,  of  Mississippi, 
who  presented  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Rules,  to 
close  the  debate.  Catchings  was  a  man  of  great  courage 

1  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4666.  2  Ibid.,  p.  4667. 

»  Ibid.  *  Ibid.,  p.  4666. 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  177 

and  of  singularly  calm  and  earnest  nature.  For  nearly 
ten  years  he  had  served  with  distinction,  and,  although 
standing  aggressively  with  his  party  in  every  parlia- 
mentary contest,  he  had  made  no  enemies.  He  formed 
his  opinions  deliberately,  spoke  slowly  and  well,  and  in 
the  heat  of  intense  excitement  was  never  inconsiderate 
or  impulsive.  Moreover,  he  recognized  that  the  reforms 
of  one  day  inspired  a  mental  condition  that  saw  the  occa- 
sion for  further  reforms  at  some  future  day.  But  in 
treating  the  subject  then  before  the  House  he  did  not 
take  the  view  of  the  reformer.  Nor  did  he  assume  the 
attitude  of  a  pungent  critic,  or  speculate  upon  the  dan- 
ger of  abandoning  the  old  procedure  that  existed  under 
Carlisle  and  Randall.  He  did  not  even  find  fault  with  the 
absentees  who  had  made  possible  the  crisis  so  humiliat- 
ing to  their  party.  With  him  the  adoption  of  the  resolu- 
tion was  simply  a  parliamentary  necessity,  and  with 
admirable  temper  he  sketched  the  situation  as  every  one 
understood  it.  For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the 
House,  he  said  in  conclusion,  a  minority,  acting  as  a  unit, 
had  stopped  all  legislation  of  whatever  kind  and  nature, 
and  the  majority,  which  has  long  indulged  the  courage 
of  despair,  must  now  say  whether  it  will  go  out  of  busi- 
ness, or  meet  such  unprecedented  opposition  with  a  rule 
that  will  silence  resentment  and  defeat  conspiracy.1 

Such  a  speech  at  such  a  time  well  suited  Catchings's 
temperament,  and  if  it  did  not  greatly  please  any  one 
except  Republicans,  it  had  not  exasperated  any  mem- 
ber of  his  party.  More  than  that,  he  had  left  the  impres- 
sion distinctly  that  the  situation  from  which  there 
1  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4669. 


178    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

seemed  no  escape  alone  induced  him  to  make  the  con- 
cession. The  same  motive  undoubtedly  inspired  what- 
ever Democratic  support  the  resolution  received,  the 
roll-call  showing  213  yeas  to  47  nays,  with  93  not  vot- 
ing.1 It  was  a  real  triumph  for  Catchings,  who  expected 
more  "noes."  To  him  and  to  his  supporters,  however, 
the  result  seemed  a  Pyrrhic  victory,  and  it  was  left  to 
the  Republicans  alone  to  applaud  the  announcement 
of  the  vote.  Their  derisive  laughter  and  cynical  jeers 
ruffled  the  tempers  of  men  who  preferred  neither  to  give 
nor  take  quarter,  but  the  first  day's  rivalry  to  secure  ac- 
tion on  delayed  legislation  quickly  allayed  resentment. 
Indeed,  so  readily  did  all  parties  accept  the  Reed  prece- 
dent that  the  appointment  of  tellers  soon  became  a  for- 
mality which  the  Speaker  ignored,  and  from  that  day  to 
this  the  mere  knowledge  that  a  count  can  be  made  has 
sufficed  to  enshrine  the  disappearing  quorum  among  the 
memorabilia  of  Congress. 

Meantime,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
reviewing  the  validity  of  the  so-called  McKinley  Tariff 
Act,  passed  in  1890  with  the  aid  of  a  counted  quorum, 
held  that  as  the  House  Journal  showed  a  quorum  pres- 
ent, the  bill  had  received  votes  enough.2  In  other  words, 
it  matters  not  how  a  quorum  is  obtained  so  long  as  the 
Journal  records  one  as  present  and  a  majority  voting 
for  the  bill. 

Since  the  establishment  of  the  Reed  rule  the  House 
is  rarely  without  a  quorum,  unless  a  session  continues 

1  53d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4671. 

2  United  States  vs.  Ballin,  144  U.S.,  p.  1;  opinion  by  Mr.  Justice 
Brewer. 


COUNTING  A  QUORUM  179 

beyond  the  dinner  hour  or  far  into  the  night.  At  such 
times,  if  the  business  be  highly  important  or  the  term 
near  its  close,  the  sergeant-at-arms,  under  instructions 
to  bring  in  the  absentees,  carefully  searches  homes, 
hotels,  boarding-houses,  and  theaters,  and  as  the  shame- 
faced delinquents  appear  in  evening  dress  or  undress 
their  tired  colleagues  jeer  and  deride  them.  But  formal 
censure  is  rarely  inflicted,  although  laughable  excuses 
are  frequently  given.  At  one  time  Luke  P.  Poland,  of 
Vermont,  happened  to  be  caught.  The  Chair  addressed 
him  with  due  solemnity.  "Mr.  Poland,  you  have  been 
absent  from  the  session  of  the  House  without  its  leave. 
What  excuse  have  you  to  offer?"  The  distinguished 
member,  in  a  tone  of  great  gravity  and  emotion,  replied : 
"I  went  with  my  wife  to  call  on  the  minister,  and  I 
stayed  a  little  too  long."  The  Chair  thought  it  a  safe 
answer  "for  constituents,"  but  "a  bit  shady"  for  col- 
leagues. However,  the  House,  rejoicing  to  get  a  quorum, 
gladly  excused  him. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  RULES  AND  THE  COMMITTEE   ON  RULES 

ON  the  day  the  House  elected  its  first  Speaker  it  ap- 
pointed James  Madison,  of  Virginia,  Elias  Boudinot,  of 
New  Jersey,  Roger  Sherman,  of  Connecticut,  and  several 
other  distinguished  parliamentarians  to  draft  a  code  of 
rules.  Boudinot  had  been  president  of  the  Continental 
Congress.  He  was  a  far-seeing,  benevolent  dictator, 
whose  patriotic  words  acted  as  a  tonic,  and  his  courageous 
colleagues  made  him  chairman  of  the  committee.  His 
report  governed  decorum  and  debate,  provided  for  the 
introduction  and  disposition  of  bills,  and  outlined  the 
conduct  of  business  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Al- 
though it  occupied  less  than  a  page  of  the  printed  pro- 
ceedings, it  included  all  the  principles  then  used  for 
the  government  of  parliamentary  bodies.  Decorum  was 
especially  emphasized.  The  Speaker  must  rise  when 
putting  a  question  or  speaking  to  points  of  order,  and 
vote  whenever  a  ballot  was  taken.  If  he  or  a  member 
addressed  the  House,  conversation,  reading,  and  "mov- 
ing about"  must  cease.  Nor  could  members  leave  the 
hall,  or  pass  between  a  speaker  and  the  Chair;  and 
upon  an  adjournment  all  must  remain  seated  until  the 
Speaker  had  withdrawn.  No  one  could  speak  twice  on 
the  same  question  without  leave,  and  not  then  until 
others  who  desired  had  spoken.  Only  motions  for  the 
previous  question,  or  to  amend,  to  commit,  or  to  ad- 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES    181 

journ,  could  be  received,  while  no  substitute  under  color 
of  an  amendment  could  be  accepted. 

The  previous  question  was  not  materially  modified. 
As  used  in  the  House  of  Commons  and  in  Congress  under 
the  Confederation,  it  ascertained  the  disposition  to  en- 
tertain the  proposition  presented.  It  took  the  form  of  a 
negative —  "Shall  the  main  question  be  not  now  put?" 
If  decided  affirmatively,  the  debate  continued;  if  nega- 
tively, the  subject  went  over.1  Boudinot  recommended 
the  omission  of  "not,"  so  that  if  decided  in  the  affirma- 
tive, it  stopped  discussion  on  the  merits  of  the  main 
question;  if  in  the  negative,  the  matter  went  over  to 
the  next  day.  He  also  increased  the  demand  for  it 
from  two  members  to  five. 

Boudinot's  rules  hedging  the  introduction  and  treat- 
ment of  bills  eliminated  at  once  all  undesirable  propo- 
sitions. To  him  a  bill  was  an  inchoate  law,  and  his 
scrutiny  of  it  resembled  the  suspicion  with  which  a  vi- 
dette  regards  the  advance  of  an  unrecognized  troop.  It 
could  be  introduced  only  by  order  of  the  House  on  the 
report  of  a  committee,  or  by  giving  a  day's  notice  of  a 
motion  for  leave,  which  motion  could  itself  be  commit- 
ted.  When  introduced  a  committee  was  appointed  to 
prepare  it.  Moreover,  each  bill  must  be  read  three  times, 
first  for  information,  and,  if  then  opposed,  the  question 
was,  "  Shall  it  be  rejected?"  If  not  rejected,  it  was  read 
a  second  time  and  committed  or  engrossed.  If  commit- 
ted, it  went  to  a  select  committee  or  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole.  If  engrossed,  which  meant  "written  in  a 

1  Journal,  Continental  Congress,  May  26,  1778,  and  July  8, 
1784. 


182    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

fair  round  hand,"  the  House  appointed  a  day  for  its  third 
reading  and  passage.  To  avoid  favoritism  all  bills  were 
considered  in  the  order  of  their  introduction  unless 
otherwise  specially  directed.  No  bill  amended  by  the 
Senate  could  be  committed. 

The  rules  governing  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  pro- 
vided for  the  election  of  a  chairman,  for  the  considera- 
tion of  bills  by  classes,  and  for  the  application  of  the 
rules  so  far  as  applicable.  In  practice  the  Committee 
determined  the  order  of  taking  up  bills,  permitted  unlim- 
ited debate  upon  each  clause,  including  amendments, 
left  the  preamble  to  be  considered  last,  and  rose  on  find- 
ing itself  without  a  quorum,  which  was  the  same  as  in 
the  House.  The  absence  of  later-day  practices  indicates 
that  the  need  of  time-saving  regulations  had  not  yet 
appeared. 

The  custom  of  readopting  the  Boudinot  Rules,  sup- 
plemented by  Jefferson's  Parliamentary  Practice,  left 
little  to  a  Committee  on  Rules.  For  many  years  it  never 
made  a  report.  Indeed,  so  slightingly  was  it  regarded 
that  Speakers,  during  five  Congresses,  neglected  to  ap- 
point such  a  committee.1  Whenever  it  became  neces- 
sary to  expedite  business  the  House,  under  the  persua- 
sive influence  of  a  few  members  interested,  usually 
adopted  a  rule  intended  to  fit  the  case  in  band.  Thus 
the  rules,  accumulating  year  after  year,  became  intri- 
cate, often  contradictory,  and  generally  misunderstood. 
John  Randolph,  whose  caustic  censure  made  the  re- 
flections of  others  seem  spiritless,  said  he  knew  the  rules 
when  he  entered  the  House,  but  the  longer  he  served 
1  The  15th,  16th,  18th,  19th  and  21st  Congresses. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES    183 

the  less  he  understood  them.  He  denounced  them  (1828) 
as  complicated  and  "extremely  unparliamentary."  l 

Several  reasons  provoked  such  criticism.  The  previ- 
ous question  did  not  close  debate.  A  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table  simply  held  the  matter  in  reserve  for  a  more 
convenient  season.  A  motion  to  reconsider  could  be 
made  at  any  time.  A  majority  might  change  a  rule  with- 
out notice  and  rescind  it  on  a  day's  notice.  A  motion  to 
proceed  to  the  orders  of  the  day,  if  carried,  set  aside  a 
pending  proposition,  "  although  the  rule  governing  the 
order  of  business  did  not  justify  such  a  motion."  2  More- 
over, the  precedence  of  motions  frequently  changed, 
while  the  practice  of  adopting  new  rules  without 
revising  old  ones  that  conflicted  increased  the  tangle. 
Fortunately,  a  spirit  of  courtesy  which  obtained  in  the 
earlier  Congresses  tended  to  make  the  practice  less  arbi- 
trary and  capricious.  "  Meihbers  acted  with  the  utmost 
deference  to  the  wishes  of  the  House,"  says  Speaker 
Reed,  writing  of  that  period.  "They  refrained  from 
making  speeches,  and  withdrew  motions  if  the  sense  of 
the  House  seemed  manifestly  against  them.  With  such 
deference  on  the  part  of  each  member  to  the  wishes  of 
all,  the  House  was  slow  to  abridge  the  right  of  debate 
and  the  use  of  the  cloture."  3 

Nevertheless,  obstruction  very  early  took  its  rise  in 
unlimited  debate.  The  purpose  of  obstruction  is  to  de- 
feat a  measure,  or  to  postpone  it  until  certain  specified 
demands  are  complied  with.  It  is  invoked  for  party 

1  20th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  1002. 

2  24th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  885. 

8  North  American  Review,  vol.  150,  p.  389. 


184    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

advantage  or  by  individuals  for  selfish  purposes.  It 
proceeds  on  the  theory  that  the  effort  of  a  minority  to 
defeat  the  majority  is  as  legitimate  and  patriotic  as  the 
majority's  use  of  its  greater  number.  Hence,  whatever 
rules  the  majority  construct  for  the  orderly  dispatch  of 
business  are,  if  possible,  avoided,  and  when  one  avenue 
is  closed,  the  minority  seeks  another.  This  constant  war- 
fare, waged  for  a  century,  resulted  in  limiting  the  rights 
of  the  minority  and  intrenching  the  power  of  the  major- 
j  ity.  It  developed  the  previous  question,  limited  the  time 
for  debate,  made  the  Speaker  a  judge  of  dilatory  mo- 
tions, forced  the  adoption  of  a  special  order  by  a  major- 
ity vote,  and  compelled  the  establishment  of  a  quo- 
rum by  counting  non- voting  members  who  are  present. 
Indeed,  the  rules,  adopted  from  time  to  time,  have  har- 
nessed the  minority  until  its  protests  are  disregarded 
and  its  threats  unheeded. 

As  already  stated,  obstruction  first  took  the  form  of 
long  speeches.  The  previous  question  under  the  Bou- 
dinot  rule  did  not  relieve  the  embarrassment.  Although 
it  cut  off  debate  on  the  main  question,  it  permitted  each 
member  to  speak  at  least  once  on  the  expediency  of  or- 
dering it.  This  soon  became  intolerable,  and  in  1805  the 
privilege  was  eliminated.  Such  a  radical  change  smote 
the  sacred  right  of  debate  too  severely  to  be  borne  with 
submission,  and  without  leave,  or  even  without  asking  for 
permission,  William  Ely,  of  Massachusetts,  then  a  new 
member,  continued  the  debate  after  the  previous  ques- 
tion had  been  demanded.  Speaker  Varnum  promptly 
called  him  to  order.  Scarcely  had  he  announced  his  de- 
cision before  Randolph  shouted  an  appeal.  In  his  argu- 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES    185 

ment  the  distinguished  Virginian  admitted  that  the  word 
"now"  in  the  formula  meant  "at  this  time,"  but  so  long 
as  "the  present  time"  continued,  he  said,  it  was  compe- 
tent for  members  to  debate  it.  This  quibble,  sustained 
on  appeal  by  the  surprising  vote  of  113  to  14,  showed 
that  the  House  resented  the  action  of  the  preceding  Con- 
gress.1 Thereafter  the  chamber  again  resounded  with 
the  voices  of  those  who  believed  that  perpetual  talking 
was  the  best  evidence  of  their  fidelity.  One  year  later 
the  question  came  up  again.  The  Speaker  restated  his 
personal  opinion  as  before,  but  declined  to  overrule  the 
vote  of  the  preceding  session. 

It  added  to  the  unhappiness  that  the  service  of  Barent 
Gardenier,  of  New  York,  spanned  this  period.  Garden- 
ier,  a  robust,  dark-featured  man,  with  heavy  jaw  and 
closely  compressed  lips,  attained  notoriety  because  of 
his  remarkable  capacity  to  talk  indefinitely.  John  C. 
Calhoun  declared  him  able  to  keep  the  floor  for  days,2 
and  Clay  adds  that  he  could  talk  for  twenty-four  hours 
without  stopping.3  Unlike  Randolph's  long  speeches, 
relieved  by  caustic  wit,  vehement  outbursts,  and  ring- 
ing invective,  Gardenier's  monotonous  loquacity,  often 
steeped  in  innuendo,  was  unbroken  by  a  sparkling  sen- 
tence. But  no  way  existed  of  stopping  him.  George 
W.  Campbell,  of  Tennessee,  the  brilliant  floor  leader, 
tried  it  and  found  Gardenier's  courage  equal  to  his  ver- 
bosity, and  although  Campbell  wounded  him,  he  estab- 
lished a  reputation  for  being  as  ready  with  his  pistol  as 

1  10th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  1183. 

2  Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  n,  p.  258. 
»  14th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  699. 


186    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

with  his  tongue.1  After  his  recovery  Gardenier  again 
took  the  floor.  It  was  usually  midnight  and  sometimes 
daylight  before  he  ceased  speaking. 

These  obstructive  tactics  suddenly  came  to  an  end 
during  a  controversy  growing  out  of  strained  relations 
with  England  and  France.  Regardless  of  the  rights  of 
neutrals,  the  British  Government  had  declared  all 
French  ports  in  a  state  of  blockade,  and  Napoleon,  retal- 
iating by  his  famous  Berlin  Decree,  interdicted  all  inter- 
course with  the  British  Islands.  Deeply  stirred  by  the 
seizure  of  American  ships,  President  Madison  had  pro- 
hibited all  commercial  intercourse  with  England;  but 
the  action  of  France  made  it  expedient  to  provide  a  way 
out  of  the  muddle,  and  for  this  purpose  John  W.  Eppes, 
of  Virginia,  chairman  of  Foreign  Affairs,  hastily  reported 
a  bill.  Eppes,  like  Campbell,  was  distinguished  as  one 
of  the  most  effective  debaters  of  his  day,  having  rare 
skill  and  discretion,  with  inexhaustible  telling  argument. 
He  possessed,  too,  a  sunny  disposition,  high  principles, 
and  pleasing  manners,  making  him  a  popular  as  well  as 
an  intellectual  leader.  It  added  to  his  prestige  that  he 
had  married  Jefferson's  daughter. 

When  debate  began  on  his  bill,  only  seven  days  of  the 
session  remained,  and  Gardenier  held  the  floor.  The 
purpose  to  strangle  the  measure  became  more  apparent 
when  Randolph,  in  the  evening  of  February  27  (1811), 
came  to  Gardenier's  relief  with  a  motion  to  postpone. 
Eppes  successfully  resisted  this  maneuver  and  Gar- 
denier continued.  At  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  Ran- 

1  The  duel  was  fought  at  Bladensburg  on  March  2, 1808,  Gardenier 
being  severely  wounded. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES  187 

dolph  again  moved  a  postponement,  to  which  Eppes 
quickly  objected.  This  brought  a  retort  from  Randolph, 
so  sharp  and  disturbing,  that  Eppes  immediately  sent 
him  a  challenge,  and  during  Randolph's  absence  to  find 
a  second,  Matthew  Lyon,  of  Kentucky,  to  consume  the 
remainder  of  the  night,  called  for  a  reading  of  the  bill  as 
amended.  To  this  Willis  Alston,  of  North  Carolina, 
objected.  The  Speaker  having  stated  the  question, 
Gardenier  promptly  took  the  floor. 

Nothing  remained  but  to  move  the  previous  question. 
Eppes  hesitated  to  cut  off  debate,  since  a  cloture  rule 
departed  widely  from  accepted  parliamentary  codes. 
The  House  of  Commons  avoided  it  and  the  Senate 
refused  such  drastic  methods.  It  vested  combinations 
with  power  to  forbid  expressions  of  adverse  sentiments, 
and  tended  to  affect  the  character  of  the  House,  making 
it  a  registrative  rather  than  a  deliberative  body.  But 
Madison's  supporters  thought  it  time  for  action.  Henry 
Clay,  although  then  in  the  Senate,  could  not  stifle  his  zeal 
for  the  Eppes  bill,  and  his  advice  stiffened  the  House.1 
He  justified  the  previous  question  as  a  constitutional 
right  of  the  majority  as  well  as  on  the  ground  of  expedi- 
ency. "It  is  nothing  more,"  he  said,  "than  a  declara- 
tion of  the  House  that  it  had  heard  enough  and  would 
proceed  to  decide."  2 

When  Gardenier  rose  to  speak,  therefore,  Thomas 
Gholson,  of  Virginia,  a  bold,  bluff,  ardent  supporter  of 
the  Administration,  demanded  the  previous  question  on 
Lyon's  motion.  This  was  promptly  ordered.  Then  Gar- 

1  Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  n,  p.  257. 
s  14th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  699. 


188    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

denier,  heedless  of  the  result,  began  talking.  Gholson 
challenged  his  right.  The  Speaker  recalled  the  precedent 
established  two  years  before,  and  although  contrary  to 
his  own  opinion,  he  still  acquiesced  in  that  action. 
Gholson  appealed  and  Gardenier  again  took  the  floor. 
Peter  B.  Porter,  of  New  York,  questioned  his  right  to 
debate  an  appeal,  and  when  Varnum  overruled  the  point 
of  order,  the  House  reversed  the  Chair.  The  question 
then  recurred  on  Gholson's  appeal,  and  the  House  by  a 
vote  of  66  to  13  again  reversed  the  Speaker,  thus  estab- 
lishing the  practice  that  ordering  the  previous  question 
ended  debate.1  Subsequently  Gardenier,  having  pro- 
posed an  amendment,  offered  to  debate  it,  but  the  House 
promptly  ordered  the  previous  question.  Three  days 
later,  after  members  had  regained  their  composure, 
Gardenier  again  ignored  the  precedent,  expressing  the 
hope  that  the  spirit  of  justice  would  now  prevail.  The 
Speaker,  however,  called  him  sharply  to  order,  and  on 
appeal  the  House  sustained  the  Chair.2 

Other  decisive  votes  exhibited  similar  vigilance.3  But 
very  soon  the  House  dropped  back  into  the  vice  of 
unlimited  debate.  Although  Gardenier  was  gone,  Ran- 
dolph remained,  often  holding  the  floor  for  five  or  six 
hours.4  Of  Randolph  in  the  last  days  of  his  service, 
Adams  says:  "His  mind  is  a  jumble  of  sense,  wit,  and 
absurdity;  his  heart  a  compound  of  egotism,  inflated 
vanity,  and  envy;  and  his  speeches  are  a  farrago  of 
commonplace  political  declamation,  mingled  with  his- 

1  llth  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  1092.          2  Ibid.,  p.  1106. 
»  14th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  pp.  696-718. 
4  16th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  1641. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES  189 

torical  allusions,  scraps  of  Latin,  and  a  continual  stream 
of  personal  malignity  and  inflated  egotism,  mixed  in 
proportion  like  those  of  the  liquor  which  he  now  tip- 
ples, about  one  third  brandy  and  two  thirds  water."  l 
But  Randolph  was  not  the  only  sinner.  William  Haile, 
of  Mississippi,  declared  that  it  took  an  average  orator 
two  or  three  days  to  make  a  speech.2  To  relieve  them- 
selves of  such  eloquence  members  not  infrequently  in- 
voked disorderly  noises,  such  as  coughing,  scraping  the 
feet,  and  banging  desk-covers,  often  compelling  talkers 
to  resume  their  seats.3 

During  this  period  the  previous  question  fell  into 
disuse.  Calhoun  declared  that  it  was  ordered  only  four 
times  in  twenty  years.4  Moreover,  it  had  developed 
into  an  unwieldy  and  dangerous  weapon.  Speaker  Clay 
held  that  if  ordered,  pending  a  motion  to  postpone  a 
bill  with  Senate  amendments,  it  brought  a  vote  not  on 
postponement,  but  on  concurring  in  the  amendments.5 
Subsequently  he  ruled  that  it  cut  off  pending  amend- 
ments, bringing  a  vote  on  the  engrossing  of  the  bill.6 
Speaker  Stevenson  held  in  1830  that  if  ordered  after 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  had  reported  a  bill  with 
an  amendment  striking  out  the  enacting  clause,  it  cut 
off  the  amendment.7  Its  two-edged  feature  especially 
startled  the  House  when  ordered  on  a  motion  to  recom- 

1  Diary,  vol.  vn,  p.  473;  vol.  vin,  p.  64. 
20th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  1754. 

16th  Cong.,   1st  Sess.,  Annals  p.  2093;  17th  Cong.,  1st  Sess., 
Annals,  p.  1301;  22d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  1919. 
Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  n,  p.  257. 
12th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  533. 
13th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  398. 
21st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  987. 


190    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

mit  the  famous  tariff  bill  of  1833  with  instructions,  the 
Chair  holding  that  it  brought  the  House  to  a  vote  on 
the  bill  itself.1  To  those  who  sought  logical  ways  of  ad- 
vancing legislation  such  decisions  seemed  the  embodi- 
ment of  partisan  puerility,  and  in  1840  the  House 
amended  the  rule,  declaring  that  the  previous  question 
"shall  put  an  end  to  debate  and  bring  the  House  to  a 
direct  vote  upon  amendments  reported  by  the  commit- 
tee, upon  pending  amendments,  and  then  upon  the  main 
question."  2  This  did  not  lock  the  partisan  door,  how- 
ever, for  in  1845,  when  the  previous  question  was 
ordered  on  a  motion  to  recommit  a  joint  resolution 
admitting  Texas,  with  instructions  to  report  it  with  a 
proviso  prohibiting  slavery,  the  House  overruled  the 
Speaker,  holding  that  it  removed  the  motion  to  recom- 
mit. Nor  could  the  House  under  the  rule,  as  amended 
in  1840,  control  debate  on  an  amendment  to  an  amend- 
ment, since  the  previous  question,  if  ordered,  precluded 
further  amendment  on  whatever  sections  remained  un- 
considered.  So,  if  ordered  on  a  motion  to  postpone  a 
bill,  it  brought  the  House  to  a  direct  vote  both  on 
amendments  and  the  bill.  In  other  words,  a  motion  to 
postpone  a  bill  when  first  presented  compelled  the 
House  either  to  hear  a  protracted  debate  on  the  subject 
of  postponement,  or  to  order  a  vote  on  the  bill  before 
it  had  been  debated.3 

During  these  years  little  of  the  parliamentary  bur- 
den fell  upon  the  Committee  on  Rules.  It  remained  a 

1  22d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  1701. 
8  26th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  121. 
»  36th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  1209. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES  191 

select  committee,  varying  from  three  to  five  members, 
whose  jurisdiction  extended  to  revising  a  code  that  had 
already  been  adopted.  It  was  without  privilege,  and  its 
report  found  quick  burial  beneath  the  propositions  of 
members  eager  to  expedite  their  own  business.  Indeed, 
the  first  gleam  of  its  power  occurred  in  1841,  when 
the  House  authorized  it  to  report  "at  all  times."  A 
month  later,  after  the  minority,  by  means  of  obstructive 
tactics,  had  held  an  important  measure  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  the  Rules  Committee  made  a  report  per- 
mitting a  majority  to  suspend  the  rules  for  the  purpose 
of  discharging  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  after  it  had 
acted  without  debate  upon  all  amendments.  It  was  a 
startlingly  clever  play.  To  suspend  the  rules  required 
a  two  thirds  vote,  which  the  Whigs  lacked;  but  a  ma- 
jority could  adopt  the  report.  Immediately  the  Demo- 
crats rose  in  protest.  The  Rules  Committee,  they 
claimed,  could  not  report  "in  part"  except  by  unani- 
mous consent  or  by  suspending  the  rules,  and  its  privi- 
lege to  report  "at  all  times  "  confined  it  to  the  legitimate 
object  for  which  it  was  created.  The  indisposition  of 
Speaker  White  to  recognize  fine  distinctions,  however, 
found  abundant  precedent.  "I  have  learned,"  he  said 
in  substance,  "that  the  rules  conform  to  the  will  of  the 
majority,"  and  he  held  that  "at  all  times"  meant  in 
part  or  in  whole  "at  any  time."  On  appeal  a  majority 
sustained  the  Chair  —  119  to  103.1 

The  result  was  cataclysmal.    It  not  only  gave  a 
majority  power  to  control  debate  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  but  made  it  master  of  the  House.  The  bewilder- 
1  27th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Debates,  pp.  9,  153;  Journal,  p.  144. 


192    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ing  excitement  which  followed  opened  the  way  for  the 
adoption  of  the  still  more  important  resolution  of  limit- 
ing  speeches  to  one  hour.1 

Although  subsequent  Houses  curbed  the  power  of  the 
Rules  Committee,  the  Thirty-third  Congress  permitted 
it  to  report  at  any  time  with  right  of  present  consider- 
ation. This  high  privilege,  however,  was  soon  with- 
drawn. Meantime,  the  rules  were  declared  to  be  "cum- 
bersome and  useless."  In  1853  the  cry  began  that  the 
Speaker,  although  not  then  a  member  of  the  Committee 
on  Rules,  obstructed  business.  Five  years  later  Israel 
Washburn,  of  Maine,  a  distinguished  parliamentarian, 
admitted  his  ignorance  of  the  meaning  and  purpose  of 
some  of  the  rules.  "They  need  to  be  amended,"  he  de- 
clared. "But  their  observance  is  most  needed.  The 
good  nature  of  members  in  granting  unanimous  consent 
breeds  ignorance,  and  when  applied  they  provoke  criti- 
cism because  a  different  practice  obtains."  2 

In  1860  Washburn  reported  his  famous  revision, 
which  included  twenty-eight  amendments.  Although 
most  of  these  changes  corrected  contradictory  pro- 
visions, combined  several  rules  into  one,  and  made 
others  conform  to  the  established  practice,  drastic  mod- 
ifications were  introduced.  One  destroyed  the  trick  of 
striking  out  the  enacting  clause  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole  and  then  disagreeing  to  the  report  in  the  House.3 
Another  provided  that  the  previous  question,  when 
negatived,  should  leave  the  pending  business  undis- 

1  27th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  145. 

2  36th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  1178,  1209. 

3  See  chap,  xm,  p.  268. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES    193 

turbed,  and  when  ordered  on  a  motion  to  postpone, 
should  act  only  on  such  motion;  or,  if  on  an  amendment 
or  an  amendment  thereto,  that  it  should  not  preclude 
debate  on  the  bill.  This  gave  the  House  the  facility  for 
amendment  enjoyed  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  To 
avoid  a  repetition  of  the  riotous  scenes  preceding  the 
election  of  Speaker  Pennington,  the  rules  of  one  House 
were  made  binding  upon  its  successor  unless  otherwise 
ordered.  Although  parliamentarians  generally  held  this 
rule  invalid  whenever  seriously  questioned,  it  survived 
for  thirty  years.1 

Washburn  did  nothing  to  strengthen  the  Committee 
on  Rules.  The  House  followed  the  precedent,  estab- 
lished in  1859,  of  making  the  Speaker  ex-officio  its  chair- 
man; but  this  conferred  no  new  privilege.  When  it  had 
once  reported,  its  functions  ceased.  Indeed  its  limited 
privileges  compelled  Speaker  Randall  in  1876  to  ask  that 
authority  be  given  it  during  the  closing  days  of  the 
session  to  report  "at  any  time"  upon  questions  relating 
to  the  currency.2  As  late  as  1879  the  Speaker  declared 
that  never,  to  his  recollection,  had  it  divided  politically 
upon  any  subject.3 

In  the  meantime  criticism  of  the  rules  again  became 
common.  Washburn's  revision  had  served  its  purpose 
well,  but  no  one,  in  1860,  could  anticipate  that  business 
would  increase  fivefold  in  twenty  years,  congesting  legis- 
lation and  limiting  the  liberty  of  the  individual.  More- 
over, the  House  had  added  forty-four  unclassified  rules 

1  For  the  discussion  and  adoption  of  these  changes  see  36th  Cong., 
1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  1177-1237. 

2  44th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  1051. 

3  46th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2329  (June  25,  1879). 


194    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

and  established  many  new  precedents.  To  remedy  this 
condition  it  directed  the  Committee  on  Rules,  consist- 
ing of  Speaker  Randall,  Joseph  C.  S.  Blackburn,  of 
Kentucky,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  James  A. 
Garfield,  of  Ohio,  and  William  P.  Frye,  of  Maine,  to 
"simplify,  revise, and  codify."  Their  report  became  the 
historic  revision  of  1880.  It  "neither  surrenders  the 
right  of  a  majority  to  control  business  for  which  it  is 
held  responsible,"  said  the  committee,  "nor  invades  the 
powers  of  a  minority  to  check  temporarily,  if  not  per- 
manently, the  action  of  a  majority  believed  to  be  im- 
proper or  unconstitutional."  1  What  it  did  was  to  retain 
twelve  rules  entire,  drop  thirty-two  because  obsolete  or 
unnecessary,  and  condense  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  into  thirty-two,  making  a  total  of  forty-four,  each 
subdivided  into  clauses,  and  arranged  with  logical  rela- 
tion to  its  subject,  thus  enabling  members  to  glance  at 
a  rule  and  find  its  correlative. 

This  revision  centered  in  an  effort  to  economize  time 
as  well  as  to  simplify  the  practice.  It  stopped  voting 
after  the  second  call  of  the  roll;  it  dropped  the  penalty 
system  of  absenteeism  without  leave;  and  it  authorized 
the  clerk  to  announce  "pairs"  instead  of  members.  It 
abolished  the  practice  of  changing  a  few  words  in  a 
pending  bill  to  make  it  germane  as  an  amendment;  it 
caused  a  motion  to  reconsider,  made  during  the  last  six 
days  of  a  session,  to  be  disposed  of  at  the  time;  it  sent 
a  bill,  to  which  objection  was  made  to  its  present  con- 
sideration, to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  or  to  the 
House  calendar;  it  gave  preference  to  revenue  and  ap- 
1  46th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  198. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES  195 

propriation  bills  in  Committee  of  the  Whole;  it  required 
bills  on  the  private  calendar  to  be  taken  up  and  disposed 
of  in  order;  and  it  provided  that  the  previous  question 
should  bring  the  House  to  a  direct  vote  upon  a  single 
motion,  a  series  of  allowable  motions,  or  upon  an  amend- 
ment or  amendments,  the  effect  being  to  carry  the  bill 
to  its  engrossment  and  third  reading,  and  then,  on  a 
renewal  of  the  motion,  to  its  passage  or  rejection.  To 
afford  "the  amplest  opportunity  to  test  the  sense  of 
the  House  as  to  whether  or  not  the  bill  is  in  the  exact 
form  it  desires,"  it  authorized  a  motion,  pending  the 
passage  of  a  bill,  to  recommit  it  with  or  without  in- 
structions. Other  changes  of  less  note  modified  the 
duties  of  minor  officers,  extended  former  members' 
admission  to  the  floor,  safeguarded  the  filing,  disposi- 
tion, and  withdrawal  of  papers,  made  the  Committee 
on  Rules  a  standing  committee  of  five  members,  gave 
a  conference  report  precedence  over  all  other  business, 
created  the  House  calendar,  to  which  were  referred  all 
public  bills  not  carrying  an  appropriation,  and  added 
an  hour  to  the  time  of  the  member  closing  a  debate 
whenever  it  extended  over  a  day.1 

The  revisers  of  1880  were  not  reformers.  They  tact- 
fully avoided  the  abolition  of  disreputable  practices, 
such  as  "riders"  on  appropriation  bills  and  the  "disap- 
pearing quorum."  They  simply  sought,  as  their  report 
stated,  to  foster  "order,  accuracy,  uniformity,  and 
economy  of  time,"  and  experience  has  justified  their 

1  For  report  and  discussion  see  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp. 
108-208;  478-91;  551-58;  575-79;  603-14;  658-65;  708-13;  727-35; 
954-59;  1195-1208;  1255-67. 


196    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

recommendations;  but  by  shunning  "riders"  and  the 
"disappearing  quorum"  they  left  the  real  red-light  dis- 
^rict  undisturbed. 

Although  the  Committee  on  Rules  profited  little  by 
becoming  a  standing  committee,  Speaker  Randall  added 
greatly  to  its  prestige,  holding  that  all  propositions  to 
change  the  rules,  in  order  to  be  agreed  to  by  a  majority 
vote,  must  be  referred  to  it,1  and  that  it  might  report 
at  any  time  on  matters  relating  to  the  rules.2  This 
enabled  it  to  intervene  and  secure  immediate  consid- 
eration of  its  reports.  But  it  did  not  prevent  a  strong, 
well-disciplined  minority,  directed  by  competent  leaders, 
from  annoying  and  often  defeating  the  majority  by  the 
use  of  dilatory  motions,  such  as  to  adjourn  or  to  ad- 
journ to  a  day  fixed.  Indeed,  these  motions  became  so 
obstructive  in  1875  that  a  despairing  member  asked  how 
they  could  be  avoided.  To  which  Speaker  Elaine  re- 
plied: "The  Chair  has  repeatedly  ruled  that  pending  a 
proposition  to  change  a  rule  dilatory  motions  could  not 
be  entertained.  The  right  of  each  House  to  determine 
what  shall  be  its  rules  is  an  organic  right  expressly 
given  by  the  Constitution.  The  House  is  incapable  by 
any  formal  rule  of  divesting  itself  of  its  inherent  con- 
stitutional power  to  exercise  the  functions  of  determin- 
ing its  own  rules.  Therefore,  the  Chair  has  always  an- 
nounced that  upon  a  proposition  to  change  the  rules  of 
the  House  he  would  never  entertain  a  dilatory  motion."8 

If  Speaker  Elaine  ever  made  such  a  ruling  it  is  not  of 

1  44th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  5262-63. 

2  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  768. 
8  43d   Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  806. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES  197 

record.  Nor  did  he  show  the  courage  of  his  conviction 
during  the  passage  of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  (1875),  since 
the  House,  to  enable  it  to  do  business,  suspended  the 
rules  and  adopted  a  resolution  providing  that  "when- 
ever a  question  is  pending  the  Speaker  shall  not  enter- 
tain any  motion  of  a  dilatory  character  except  one  to 
adjourn  and  one  to  fix  the  time  to  adjourn."  To  avoid 
all  question  respecting  the  adoption  of  this  report 
Speaker  Elaine  took  pains  to  announce  that  it  had 
received  a  two  thirds  vote.1  Samuel  J.  Randall  asked 
if  it  required  a  two  thirds  vote.  To  which  the  Speaker 
artfully  replied:  "The  Chair  does  not  so  state."  2 

This  was  the  parliamentary  situation  on  May  29, 
1882,  when  the  House  sought  to  consider  a  contested 
election  case  in  which  Joseph  Wheeler,  of  Alabama,  the 
famous  Confederate  cavalry  chieftain,  appeared  as  con- 
testee.  Wheeler  had  secured  a  certificate  of  election 
based  on  a  majority  of  47,  while  the  contestant,  also 
a  former  Confederate  officer,  presented  alleged  proof  of 
having  received  600  majority.  The  minority  showed  a 
waspish  partiality  for  Wheeler.  Local  prejudices  seemed 
to  be  transferred  to  Washington,  and  to  prevent  con- 
sideration of  the  case,  Wheeler's  friends  muzzled  the 
House  with  roll-calls.  Thereupon  Thomas  B.  Reed, 
from  the  Committee  on  Rules,  presented  a  report  allow- 
ing the  Speaker  to  entertain  only  one  motion  to  adjourn 
or  to  take  a  recess  pending  "the  consideration  of  any 
question  which  may  arise  on  a  case  involving  the  con- 
stitutional right  to  a  seat."  3  This  touched  the  mooted 

1  43d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  891-92.  *  Ibid.,  p.  892. 

8  An  amendment  to  par.  8,  Rule  xvi. 


198    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

question,  and  Samuel  J.  Randall  began  to  filibuster. 
After  raising  the  question  of  consideration,  he  moved 
to  adjourn.  Again  defeated,  he  moved  to  adjourn  to  a 
day  certain.  Then  Reed  made  the  point  of  order  that 
dilatory  motions  could  not  be  entertained  pending  a 
proposition  to  change  the  rules.  This  peremptory  chal- 
lenge startled  the  House.  It  meant  a  fight,  and  members 
quickly  gathered  to  witness  the  forensic  duel. 

Randall  had  led  the  minority  in  the  time  of  Thad- 
deus  Stevens.  He  did  not  possess  the  latter's  uncurbed 
acerbity,  or  the  scintillating  badinage  of  Elaine,  but  he- 
could  be  pitiless.  He  had  dealt  many  trenchant  blows. 
His  famous  retort  that  the  Republican  party  was  an 
"organized  hypocrisy"  made  Garfield  wince.  Demo- 
crats had  coined  into  familiar  quotations  his  hard  hits 
at  Elaine.  More  fierce  and  cutting  was  his  accusation 
that  Robert  C.  Schenck  borrowed  his  tactics  from  the 
Whigs.  For  nearly  twenty  years  his  genius  had  lent 
great  interest  to  the  proceedings,  and  the  House  knew 
that  a  bout  with  the  rising  young  member  from  Maine 
would  add  another  dramatic  film  to  the  Record. 

Reed  had  just  entered  his  third  term.  He  was  cold 
and  brusque  in  manner,  and  seemed  in  general  to  have 
hardly  a  gleam  of  the  emotional  in  him.  In  fact,  his 
friendships  and  affections  were  most  enduring.  Yet  in 
his  ordinary  bearing  there  was  little  to  suggest  genuine 
warmth.  He  had  been  the  solicitor  of  his  city,  the  at- 
torney-general of  his  State,  and  a  dominating  force  in 
the  legislature  of  Maine.  There  was  peculiar  courage, 
too,  in  the  part  he  took  in  the  House.  He  had  shown 
that  he  could  hold  his  own  in  retort  and  in  sarcasm 


RULES  AND   COMMITTEE  ON   RULES  199 

against  any  antagonist.  But  he  had  not  met  Randall. 
He  came  into  the  House  during  the  latter's  second  term 
as  Speaker,  and  opportunity  to  justify  an  attack  had 
not  before  been  presented.  From  the  chair  Randall  had 
studied  him.  He  had  heard  his  sarcastic  replies  sweep 
the  chamber  like  grapeshot,  and  he  had  learned,  from 
his  cross-examination  of  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  of  his  habit 
of  going  ungloved  after  results.  But  Randall  probably 
had  little  suspicion  that  the  member  whom  he  then 
faced  was  a  man  of  as  cool  judgment,  as  long  a  head,  and 
as  complete  a  capacity  for  the  control  of  a  great  party 
as  any  statesman  who  had  appeared  in  the  House  for 
generations. 

Nevertheless,  it  was  a  crucial  moment  for  the  new 
leader.  Pitted  for  the  first  time  against  the  veteran 
sense-carrier  of  his  party,  it  put  to  proof  the  real  stuff 
in  him.  He  was  venturing  on  new  ice.  Blaine  had 
pointed  the  way,  but  he  was  to  try  it.  The  twinkle  in 
Randall's  eye  and  the  quick  appearance  of  his  well- 
worn  Manual,  which  opened  at  the  desired  section,  did 
not  escape  Reed's  observation  as  he  made  his  point  of 
order.  Nor  did  he  forget  that  the  distinguished  Speaker, 
often  to  his  party's  disadvantage,  had  safeguarded  the 
rights  of  the  minority.  But  Reed  was  exactly  the  man 
to  be  audacious,  and  at  the  opening  of  the  debate  he 
declared  that  "whenever  it  is  imposed  upon  Congress 
to  accomplish  a  certain  work,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Speaker,  who  represents  the  House,  and  who,  in  his 
official  capacity,  is  the  embodiment  of  the  House,  to 
carry  out  that  rule  of  law  or  of  the  Constitution.  It 
then  becomes  his  duty  to  see  that  no  factious  opposition 


200    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

prevents  the  House  from  doing  its  duty.  He  must  brush 
away  all  unlawful  combinations  to  misuse  the  rules  and 
must  hold  the  House  strictly  to  its  work."  l 

To  most  members  Reed's  proposition  was  novel. 
Cannon  had  heard  Elaine's  dictum.  So  had  Holman,  of 
Indiana,  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania,  Kasson,  of  Iowa,  Mills, 
of  Texas,  Cox,  of  New  York,  and  some  others.  But  to 
the  great  majority  Reed's  terse,  vigorous  sentences, 
with  an  occasional  metallic  note  of  sarcasm,  proclaimed 
a  new  doctrine.  Their  right  to  suspend  the  rules  was 
clear.  So,  too,  was  their  power  to  adopt  a  report  which 
changed  a  rule.  But  it  seemed  a  great  stretch  of  power 
for  the  Speaker,  preceding  the  adoption  of  such  a  report, 
arbitrarily  to  eliminate  motions  to  adjourn  and  the  like, 
because  the  Constitution  authorized  the  House  to  make 
its  own  rules.  Indeed,  Randall  had  overruled  a  similar 
resolution  proposed  by  Mills,2  and  in  replying  to  Reed, 
the  former  Speaker  calmly  but  with  great  earnestness 
enlarged  upon  the  reasons  then  given.  During  the  count 
of  the  electoral  vote  in  1877,  he  said,  he  had  ruled  out 
such  motions  because  the  law  creating  the  Electoral 
Commission  specifically  required  it.  But  no  law  sup- 
ported the  proposed  action.  Blaine  had  suggested  it, 
but  he  wisely  refrained  from  enforcing  it.  Until  now 
no  one  had  seriously  thought  of  it.  The  House,  having 
already  acted  in  pursuance  of  its  constitutional  power, 
had  adopted  certain  limitations  as  to  changing  its  rules. 
It  was  estopped,  therefore,  from  enlarging  these  limita- 
tions. To  permit  it  would  deprive  the  minority  of  its 

1  47th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4306. 

2  45th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  175. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES  201 

only  weapon  to  stop  the  wickedness  of  a  lawless  ma- 
jority. On  this  point  he  submitted  the  remarks  of 
Speaker  Onslow,  of  the  British  House:  "As  it  is  always 
in  the  power  of  the  majority,  by  their  numbers,  to  stop 
any  improper  measures  proposed  on  the  part  of  their 
opponents,"  said  the  distinguished  parliamentarian, 
"the  only  weapons  by  which  the  minority  can  defend 
themselves  against  similar  attempts  from  those  in 
power  are  the  forms  and  rules  of  proceeding  which  have 
been  accepted  as  they  were  found  necessary  from  time 
to  time  and  are  become  the  law  of  the  House,  by  a  strict 
adherence  to  which  the  weaker  party  can  only  be  pro- 
tected from  those  irregularities  and  abuses  which  these 
forms  were  intended  to  check,  and  which  the  wanton- 
ness of  power  is  but  too  often  apt  to  suggest  to  large 
and  successful  majorities."  l 

Onslow's  statement  undoubtedly  crystallizes  into  the 
fewest  words  the  argument  upon  which  rests  the  hope 
of  every  minority.  But  the  hope  of  the  minority,  Reed 
replied,  must  not  become  the  despair  of  the  majority. 
Protection  of  the  minority  did  not  mean  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  majority.  The  Speaker  must  protect  the 
rights  of  each,  but  first  of  all  he  must  see  that  the  House 
performs  the  duty  for  which  it  exists  under  the  Con- 
stitution. This  was  a  pat  answer,  and  his  party  backers 
roundly  applauded.  But  Blackburn  came  back  double- 
shotted.  If  the  Speaker  can  arbitrarily  brush  away  all 
factious  opposition  which  prevents  the  House  from 
doing  what  the  Chair  regards  it  to  be  its  duty,  he  asked, 
why  may  he  not  on  the  same  principle  destroy  a  far 
1  47th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4308. 


202    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

worse  form  of  obstruction  by  counting  a  quorum?  This 
was  a  body  blow.  To  make  it  more  incisive,  the  Ken- 
tuckian  had  Reed's  speech  in  opposition  to  such  action 
read  from  the  desk.  Reed  must  have  known  that  he 
was  open  to  this  savage  thrust,  for  his  argument 
covered  the  "disappearing  quorum"  as  well  as  "dilatory 
motions";  but  he  felt  little  daunted  on  that  score.  He 
was  more  eager  just  then  to  destroy  dilatory  motions 
than  to  be  consistent,  and  without  hesitation,  but  to  the 
discouragement  of  the  friends  of  orderly  procedure,  he 
reaffirmed  his  former  position.1  However,  he  fared  very 
well,  since  the  Speaker  ruled  in  his  favor  and  the  House 
sustained  it  on  appeal.  His  report  was  then  adopted; 
yeas,  150;  nays,  2;  not  voting,  139;  constituting  a  quo- 
rum, 147.  It  was  a  great  victory,  since  it  enabled  the 
Committee  on  Rules  to  have  its  reports  promptly 
adopted,  and  from  that  hour  Reed  became  the  real 
leader  of  his  party.  Ever  after,  so  long  as  he  remained 
in  Congress,  his  voice  gave  the  word  of  command. 

In  the  next  session  Reed  undertook  a  more  perilous 
adventure.  A  House  bill  with  Senate  amendments  re- 
ducing the  internal  revenue  tax  had  rested  upon  the 
Speaker's  table  for  several  weeks,  since  the  Republicans, 
lacking  a  two  thirds  majority,  could  not  suspend  the 
rules  and  send  it  to  conference.  It  was  a  party  measure. 
Although  several  Republicans  opposed  it,  a  desire  for 
its  passage  found  generous  expression,  and  the  delay 
created  much  anxiety.  As  the  closing  week  of  Congress 
appeared,  it  turned  anxiety  into  exasperation.  Sud- 
denly, without  notice,  Reed  startled  the  House  by  pre- 

1  47th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  4313.  See  also  chap,  ix,  p.  162. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON   RULES    203 

senting  a  report  from  the  Committee  on  Rules  providing 
that  it  be  in  order  at  any  time  during  the  remainder  of 
the  session  to  suspend  the  rules  by  a  majority  vote, 
take  the  bill  from  the  Speaker's  table,  declare  a  disa- 
greement, and  ask  a  conference  thereon,  the  committee 
on  the  part  of  the  House  to  be  composed  of  five  mem- 
bers.1 

Instantly  the  House  was  on  its  feet.  It  recalled  the 
clever  play  of  the  Whigs  in  1841  and  provoked  a  scene 
not  less  riotous.  Cox,  of  New  York,  declared  that  "it 
outrages  every  principle  of  parliamentary  procedure. 
It  is  a  fraud  on  all  that  is  just  and  fair  in  our  politics. 
It  is  revolutionary."  The  fiery  Blackburn  paced  the 
floor,  charging  coercion.  "If  common  rumor  be  cred- 
ited," he  said,  pointing  his  finger  at  Reed,  "you  dared 
not  trust  a  count,  but  have  obligated  your  forces  by  a 
written  and  signed  agreement."  Even  Carlisle,  the 
gentle  logician,  pronounced  it  "a  monstrous  proposi- 
tion," while  Randall,  who  exercised  a  control  over  his 
long  obedient  followers  somewhat  like  that  of  the  heart 
of  Bruce  in  the  old  Scottish  story,  declared  that,  al- 
though partisan  opposition  had  sorely  tried  his  patience, 
he  had  refused  during  his  service  as  Speaker  to  imperil 
the  rights  of  the  minority  and  perhaps  the  life  of  the 
Republic  by  violating  a  practice  which  all  his  predeces- 
sors save  one  had  observed. 

Reed  recognized  the  bizarre  character  of  his  innova- 
tion^ "Unless  there  was  a  great  emergency,"  he  said, 
"I  snould  not  be  in  favor  of  its  passage."  Men  of 
dominating  minds  often  see  "  a  great  emergency  "  when 
1  43d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  892. 


204    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

opposition  confronts  them.  His  success  in  the  preceding 
session  probably  aided  his  vision.  But  he  was  no 
dreamer.  As  a  master  debater  he  might  carelessly  pre- 
cipitate a  hot  discussion,  but  he  was  too  shrewd  to  stake 
his  growing  prestige  on  this  latest  adventure  without 
due  warrant,  and  so  he  spent  several  days  in  overcoming 
scruples  and  obtaining  pledges.  His  precaution,  how- 
ever, scarcely  justified  his  final  action,  for  the  disap- 
pearance of  thirty-two  members  of  his  own  party  left 
him  without  a  quorum.  Even  the  next  morning  when 
he  appeared  with  a  file  of  recruits,  failure  stared  him  in 
the  face  until  several  Nationalists,  suddenly  seized  with 
a  desire  to  go  upon  record  in  opposition,  swelled  the  to- 
tal vote  to  a  quorum.1  After  such  a  harassing  experi- 
ence it  is  not  surprising,  perhaps,  that  Reed  concluded, 
whenever  opportunity  offered,  to  strike  the  "  disappear- 
ing quorum"  a  shattering  blow. 

The  Committee  on  Rules,  after  the  adoption  of  this 
procedure,  began  to  fill  the  public  eye.  Like  Pan- 
dora's box  it  seemed  to  conceal  surprising  possibilities. 
Speaker  Carlisle  stimulated  the  country's  curiosity  by 
appointing  to  its  membership  (1883)  the  chairmen  of 
Ways  and  Means  and  of  Appropriations.  This  com- 
bine gave  him  watchful  floor  managers,  who  held  the 
purse-strings  and  distributed  favors.  Nevertheless,  Car- 
lisle did  not  yield  readily  to  the  elimination  of  dilatory 
motions  or  the  adoption  of  special  orders  by  a  majority 
vote.  Like  Randall  he  believed  the  minority  possessed 

1  The  House  numbered  293  members,  divided  as  follows:  Republi- 
cans, 152;  Democrats,  130;  Nationalists,  9;  Readjusters,  2;  necessary 
for  a  quorum,  147.  First  vote,  yeas,  120;  nays,  20;  not  voting,  151. 
Second  vote,  yeas,  129;  nays,  22;  not  voting,  142. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES    205 

rights  which,  if  destroyed,  might  imperil  free  govern- 
ment, and  although  the  Rules  Committee  reported  dur- 
ing the  Forty-eighth  Congress  three  special  orders 
which  a  majority  adopted,  the  procedure  grew  slowly 
in  favor.  In  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  however,  Car- 
lisle not  only  used  it  more  freely,  but  added  greatly  to 
the  Rules  Committee's  prestige  by  extending  its  jur- 
isdiction to  the  order  of  business.  After  the  gift  of 
this  high  privilege,  the  House,  accustomed  to  parlia- 
mentary surprises,  stood  aghast  when  the  Committee, 
in  a  single  special  order,  adopted  by  a  majority,  fixed 
the  order  of  business  for  sixteen  legislative  days.1  Had 
Reed  prophesied  in  1883  that  Carlisle,  within  five  years, 
would  make  such  a  wholesale  use  of  this  "monstrous 
proposition,"  members  would  have  regarded  him  a 
senile  sorcerer. 

Yet  Carlisle's  administration  during  the  Fiftieth 
Congress  came  perilously  near  being  a  failure.  His 
name  belongs  in  the  short  list  of  great  Speakers.  His 
opinions  read  like  the  decisions  of  an  eminent  judge. 
His  impartiality  and  the  sweetness  of  his  manner 
prompted  the  minority  members  to  present  him  a 
loving-cup  as  an  evidence  of  their  affection.  But  dila- 
tory motions,  the  disappearing  quorum,  and  his  refusal 
to  ascertain  the  presence  of  a  quorum  by  counting  the 
House  made  him  the  slave  of  filibusters.  As  elsewhere 
stated,  their  subtle  arts  prostituted  every  legitimate 
motion  and  kept  the  assembly  in  continuous  roll-calls. 

When  Reed  succeeded  Carlisle  (1889),  he  determined 
to  destroy  this  evil.  Others  had  revised;  he  proposed  to 
1  51st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  8349. 


206    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

reform.  The  code-makers  of  1880  boasted  that  they  did 
not  disturb  the  rights  of  the  minority;  Reed  declared 
that  a  minority  should  not  disturb  the  rights  of  the 
majority.  The  former  minimized  the  result  without 
abolishing  the  cause;  the  latter  laid  the  axe  to  the  root. 
To  enable  him  the  better  to  succeed,  the  House,  for  the 
first  time  in  its  history,  refused  to  adopt  rules  at  its 
organization,  thus  substituting  the  general  parliamen- 
tary law.  During  this  period  the  Speaker  counted  a 
quorum.1  Afterward  came  the  Reed  Rules.  Of  the  ten 
modifications,  most  of  them  excited  little  or  no  opposi- 
tion. Indeed,  members  generally  approved  the  read- 
justment of  the  order  of  business,  the  reduction  of  the 
quorum  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  one  hundred, 
and  the  relief  of  the  morning  hour  by  filing  bills  and 
reports  with  the  clerk.2  What  made  these  rules  famous 
were  additions,  not  modifications.  Having  heretofore 
suppressed  dilatory  motions,  adopted  special  orders  by 
a  majority  vote,  and  counted  a  quorum,  Reed  now 
reduced  the  practice  to  written  rules.3 

Charles  F.  Crisp,  of  Georgia,  led  the  opposition  to 
their  adoption.  He  appreciated  the  difficulty  of  chang- 
ing fixed  habits.  He  knew  that  members,  attached  to 
old  forms  and  parliamentary  ways,  would  protest 
against  the  Reed  innovations,  and  in  drawing  the  rays 
of  prejudice  into  one  focus  and  kindling  them  into  a 
flame  of  resentment,  he  exhibited  such  real  1'eadership 
that  his  party  picked  him  to  succeed  Reed  (1891). 
Once  in  the  Chair  he  naturally  dropped  the  rules  he 

1  See  chap,  ix,  p.  166.  *  See  chap,  xi,  p.  220. 

8  Rule  xi,  sec.  56;  xv,  sees.  2  and  3;  xvi,  sec.  10. 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  .RULES  207 

had  condemned.  But  to  avoid  the  unfortunate  experi- 
ence of  Carlisle  he  crushed  the  filibuster  by  authorizing 
the  Committee  on  Rules  to  meet  at  any  time,  to  report 
without  notice,  and  to  dispose  of  its  report  without  the 
intervention  of  any  motion  except  one  to  adjourn.1  In 
other  words,  what  Reed  left  to  the  Speaker,  Crisp  gave 
to  his  committee.  One  magnified  the  Chair,  the  other 
exalted  Rules.  Reed  met  the  filibuster  face  to  face; 
Crisp  waited  the  action  of  his  lieutenants.  In  refusing 
at  the  outset  to  count  a  quorum,  Crisp  relied  upon  an 
excessive  majority.  But  his  helplessness  in  the  Fifty- 
third  Congress  forced  the  adoption  of  a  rule  authorizing 
the  Speaker,  before  a  roll-call,  to  appoint  one  teller  from 
each  party,  upon  whose  report  the  Chair  announced  a 
quorum.2  This,  also,  was  Reed's  method.  Under  him, 
the  clerk  kept  tally;  under  Crisp,  the  tellers.  In  other 
words,  Crisp  laid  aside  Reed's  garments  and  got  into 
others  of  like  pattern.  Subsequent  Houses,  however, 
have  preferred  Reed's  clothes.  Nevertheless,  the  fear, 
so  often  and  fiercely  expressed,  that  the  gift  of  such 
power  might  sacrifice  safety  to  dispatch,  has  never 
wholly  vanished.  By  removing  restraints  which  emas- 
culated the  minority,  the  Reed  Rules  dropped  the  bars 
to  all  sorts  of  theoretical  panaceas,  until  the  cry  is 
heard  of  too  much  legislation  and  that  the  House 
has  ceased  to  be  a  deliberative  body. 

How  thoroughly  the  Reed  Rules  cripple  the  fili- 
buster was  demonstrated  when  John  Sharp  Williams,  of 
Mississippi,  boldly  proposed  (1908)  blocking  all  legisla- 

1  53d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  91. 

2  53d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4660.   See  also  chap,  ix,  p.  174. 


208    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

tion  until  the  House  should  pass  certain  specified  bills. 
Other  minority  leaders  had  tried  their  hand.  James  D. 
Richardson,  of  Tennessee,  sat  patiently  through  two 
Congresses,  but  failed  to  score.  Joseph  W.  Bailey,  of 
Texas,  did  no  better.  No  one  questioned  Bailey's  pre- 
eminent ability.  In  the  higher  qualifications  of  a  de- 
bater, as  in  those  gifts  of  lucid  exposition,  of  which  he 
was  a  master,  he  had  few  equals  in  the  House.  Even  in 
his  errors  there  was  something  dashing  and  captivating; 
and  although  his  language  occasionally  betrayed  dis- 
trust, he  left  the  impression  that  his  strength  was  suf- 
ficient. Perhaps  his  chief  fault  was  that  he  was  too 
strong  for  those  around  him.  Yet  whenever  he  tried  to 
buck  the  Reed  Rules,  he  discovered  the  House  was 
harnessed. 

Williams  did  not  expect  to  breach  them.  He  sought 
to  create  a  campaign  issue,  and  he  hoped,  by  maintain- 
ing an  all-summer's  deadlock,  to  arouse  national  atten- 
tion and  interest.  Conditions  seemed  propitious.  He 
had  a  minority  of  more  than  one  third,  a  body  of  sym- 
pathetic lieutenants,  and  a  troop  of  followers  who  kept 
their  places  with  a  quiet  determination  to  forego  sleep 
and  society.  Besides,  he  had  at  his  side  John  J.  Fitz- 
gerald, of  New  York,  a  most  skilled  parliamentarian. 
Although  sometimes  unamiable  and  unconciliatory,  the 
House  liked  Williams.  He  was  quite  incapable  of  bluster 
or  violence.  His  broad  sense  of  humor  carried  with  it 
a  sense  of  proportion;  his  mellow  voice,  tinged  with 
a  peculiarly  pleasing  Southern  accent,  filled  the  large 
chamber;  his  language  seldom  gave  offense;  and  when 
off  duty  his  good  nature  bubbled  over.  The  circle  of  his 


RULES  AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES  209 

warmest  friends  included  the  Speaker.  It  was  "Joe" 
and  "John."  Observers  noted,  too,  that  in  partisan 
encounters,  when  the  eye  sparkled,  retorts  rankled,  and 
the  firm  mouth-muscles  moved  slowly,  an  occasional 
smile  dissipated  the  thought  that  superheated  zeal  had 
buried  friendship. 

Williams  relied  upon  roll-calls.  The  Chair  might  de- 
clare motions  dilatory,  but  under  the  Constitution  one 
fifth  of  the  members  could  demand  the  yeas  and  nays 
upon  every  division.  Reed  invoked  this  constitutional 
privilege  when  he  forced  Speaker  Crisp  to  count  a 
quorum,  and  in  order  to  obtain  the  greatest  number  of 
divisions,  Williams  waylaid  general  appropriation  bills 
on  their  return  from  the  Senate  freighted  with  amend- 
ments. Under  the  usual  procedure  of  the  House  these 
offered  unlimited  demands  for  roll-calls,  ten  or  twelve 
of  which  exhaust  an  ordinary  legislative  day.  More- 
over, they  make  a  most  tedious  day.  After  voting  a 
member  may  retire  to  the  cloak-room,  but  not  to  other 
work.  He  simply  exists  until  another  roll-call.  Before 
the  adoption  of  the  Reed  Rules  from  two  to  eight  days 
were  often  thus  employed.  When  Williams  disclosed  his 
purpose,  however,  the  Committee  on  Rules  exploited 
its  resourcefulness.  It  enabled  the  question  to  be  put: 
"  Will  the  House  disagree  with  the  Senate  amendments 
en  bloc  and  request  a  conference?"  This  required  only 
one  division  or  roll-call.  It  declared  the  motion  for  a 
recess  privileged.  This  made  the  legislative  day  contin- 
uous, thus  obviating  the  daily  approval  of  the  Journal. 
It  conferred  authority  upon  the  Speaker  to  declare 
the  House  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  upon  the 


210    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  the  right  to 
declare  it  in  recess.  It  also  made  every  day  a  "suspen- 
sion day,"  and  provided  for  the  suspension  of  the  rules 
by  a  majority  vote.  In  other  words,  the  House  tempo- 
rarily substituted  a  new  procedure  of  clever  parliamen- 
tary devices,  which  gave  the  Speaker  the  initiative  and 
left  little  opportunity  for  roll-calls.  Indeed,  instead  of 
delaying  business  Williams  practically  expedited  it. 

Although  the  House  approved  the  dispatch  of  busi- 
ness under  the  Reed  Rules,  the  increasing  domination 
of  the  Committee  on  Rules  made  trouble.  In  presenting 
special  orders  it  not  infrequently,  when  it  seemed  quite 
unnecessary,  moved  the  previous  question,  thus  limit- 
ing debate  to  forty  minutes.  Members  complained  of 
being  neither  consulted  nor  informed.  An  apparent  ten- 
dency to  avoid  the  consideration  of  unprivileged  bills  on 
the  House  and  Union  calendars,  by  interposing  special 
orders,  also  occasioned  complaint.  It  necessitated  bar- 
tering with  the  Speaker  for  recognition  to  secure  unani- 
mous consent,  a  proceeding  always  embarrassing  and 
often  humiliating.  More  subtle,  yet  no  less  disturbing, 
was  the  feeling,  created  by  the  tyranny  of  alleged  party 
necessity,  that  one  must  support  whatever  the  Rules 
Committee  brought  forward  or  become  irregular.  In 
fact,  nothing  better  illustrates  the  extraordinary  power 
that  the  desire  to  be  regular  wields  in  the  House  than 
the  dumb  fidelity  with  which  the  great  majority  of 
members  yield  to  this  shibboleth.  Yet  members  who 
voluntarily  fall  into  line  often  resent  it.  It  seems  to 
reduce  them  to  pawns,  while  knights  play  the  game. 

Before  Speaker  Carlisle  retired,  propositions  appeared 


RULES   AND  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES    211 

to  enlarge  the  Rules  Committee  and  make  it  more  rep- 
resentative. 1  Other  resolutions  during  Crisp's  adminis- 
tration suggested  seven,  nine,  and  fifteen  members, 
while  the  more  radical  proposed  that  its  membership 
include  all  the  chairmen  of  other  standing  committees. 
One  member  thought  each  State  should  be  represented 
upon  it,2  But  these  propositions  fell  by  the  wayside. 
Finally,  in  the  Sixty-first  Congress,  several  members  of 
the  majority  party,  known  as  "Insurgents,"  charged 
that  the  House  had  degenerated  into  an  assembly  serv- 
ing no  other  purpose  than  to  register  the  arbitrary 
edicts  of  a  too  powerful  Committee  on  Rules.  They 
were  profoundly  in  earnest.  Indeed,  it  seemed  certain 
that  their  union  with  the  minority  would  result  in  an 
enlargement  of  the  Committee  with  the  Speaker  left 
out,  and  to  avoid  the  trap,  Republicans  made  allies  of 
several  Democrats  by  adopting  amendments  providing 
(1)  that  on  Wednesdays  the  call  of  committees  should 
not  be  interrupted  unless  by  a  two  thirds  vote  of  those 
present;  (2)  that  on  the  passage  of  a  bill,  after  the  pre- 
vious question  is  ordered  and  a  motion  to  recommit 
is  in  order,  the  Speaker  shall  recognize  for  such  motion 
a  member  who  is  in  good  faith  opposed  to  the  bill;  and 
(3)  that  a  calendar  for  unanimous  consents  be  created.3 
These  provisions  ended  trafficking  with  the  Speaker, 
satisfied  the  minority,  and  opened  a  way  for  unprivileged 
bills.  In  fact,  the  reforms  proved  so  beneficial  that  all 
parties  exhibited  a  disposition  to  be  satisfied,  and  the 

1  50th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  124. 

2  53d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  73, 1042, 1077, 1084. 
8  61st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  23-32. 


THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Republican  division  might  possibly  have  been  healed 
had  legislative  leaders  acknowledged  that  diversity  of 
opinion  within  a  party  must  be  quickly  recognized,  and 
that  unity  of  action  depends  largely  upon  conciliatory 
tactics. 

In  this  instance,  however,  apparent  if  not  studied  in- 
attention fanned  the  smouldering  embers,  until,  at  last, 
after  weeks  of  watching,  the  Insurgents  caught  the 
Republicans  without  a  majority.  Quickly  combining 
with  the  Democrats  they  forced  the  election  of  a  new 
Committee  on  Rules  composed  of  ten  members  without 
the  Speaker.1  A  parliamentary  genius  never  planned  a 
more  successful  coup  d  '6tat.  It  rivaled  Reed's  discovery 
of  Speaker  Crisp's  helplessness.2  In  the  language  of 
Disraeli,  descriptive  of  Sir  Robert  Peel's  master-stroke, 
the  Insurgents  caught  the  Republicans  bathing  and 
walked  away  with  their  clothes.  It  was  a  savage  re- 
venge. It  not  only  deeply  humiliated  a  proud  party 
that  had  controlled  the  House  continuously  for  fourteen 
consecutive  years,  but  it  implied  a  censure  of  all  who 
had  hitherto  failed  to  voice  such  a  change.  Yet,  in 
reorganizing  the  new  Committee  on  Rules  under  the 
elective  system,  all  the  old  members  except  the  Speaker 
were  not  only  retained,  but  John  Dalzell,  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, who  had  served  continuously  as  a  potent  influ- 
ence on  the  committee  under  Speakers  Reed,  Hender- 
son, and  Cannon,  was  elected  chairman.  It  added  to 
the  compliment  that  the  Insurgents  themselves  voted 
for  him. 

1  61st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  3305. 
«  Chap,  ix,  p.  172. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  ORDER   OF  BUSINESS 

IT  frequently  happens  that  a  new  member,  seeking 
unanimous  consent,  is  suddenly  stopped  by  a  loud, 
sharp  cry  of  "Regular  order!'*  If  he  insists  that  recog- 
nition entitles  him  to  the  floor,  the  Speaker  blandly 
replies  that  the  demand  for  the  regular  order,  being 
equivalent  to  an  objection,  deprives  him  of  that  right. 
Thereupon  he  scowls  at  the  discourteous  objector,  in- 
wardly resolves  to  be  avenged,  and  helplessly  sits  down, 
inquiring  of  his  seat  mate  what  the  "regular  order"  is. 
"Anything  that  is  in  order,"  he  is  told.  "But  what  is 
in  order?"  he  insists.  His  informant  does  not  know. 
Only  the  Speaker  and  a  few  watchful  parliamentarians 
keep  run  of  it.  It  may  be  a  question  of  privilege,  or  a 
conference  report,  or  a  bill  on  which  the  previous  ques- 
tion was  ordered  the  day  before,  or  a  special  order,  or 
a  privileged  bill,  or  any  one  of  half  a  dozen  other  mat- 
ters. If  it  be  none  of  these,  it  is  the  regular  "order  of 
business,"  which  changes  from  Congress  to  Congress  as 
new  conditions  make  new  rules  necessary. 

The  House  always  opens  the  proceedings  with  prayer, 
followed  by  the  reading  and  approval  of  the  Journal. 
Originally  no  further  need  existed  for  an  "order  of 
business."  Members  presented  petitions,  made  long 
speeches,  and  submitted  committee  reports  whenever 
the  Speaker  granted  recognition.  But  precedent  gradu- 


214    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ally  established  an  order.  Thus  the  custom  of  present- 
ing petitions  in  the  first  or  "morning  hour"  became  so 
deeply  rooted  that  in  1809  Speaker  Varnum  ruled  a 
resolution  out  of  order  when  offered  in  that  time.  As 
early  as  1794  the  business  left  unfinished  at  the  preced- 
ing adjournment  had  preference.  In  1810  the  consid- 
eration of  private  bills,  which  personally  concern  the 
political  welfare  of  members,  became  the  regular  order 
for  each  Friday. 

In  1811  the  rules  provided  this  order  of  business: 
(1)  Prayer;  (2)  reading  and  approval  of  the  Journal; 
(3)  presentation  of  petitions;  (4)  reports  from  commit- 
tees; (5)  unfinished  business;  and  (6)  consideration  of 
reports  assigned  to  a  future  day,  known  as  "orders  of 
the  day."  The  rapid  increase  of  routine  legislation, 
however,  kept  parliamentarians  busy  inventing  new 
devices  for  the  advancement  of  important  measures. 
The  practice  of  mortgaging  the  future  with  "orders  of 
the  day"  became  so  unwieldy  that  the  House  cut  off 
debate  respecting  the  priority  of  such  business  and  gave 
precedence  to  "special  orders  of  the  day."  Subsequently 
it  limited  (1822)  petitions  and  reports  to  a  "morning 
hour"  of  sixty  minutes,  required  a  two  thirds  vote  to 
suspend  the  rules,  gave  up  Saturdays  as  well  as  Fridays 
to  the  consideration  of  private  bills,  and  fixed  a  definite 
time  for  disposing  of  business  "on  the  Speaker's  table" 
—  a  parliamentary  term  indicating  the  temporary 
abode  of  certain  messages  from  the  President,  commun- 
ications from  heads  of  departments,  bills  with  Senate 
amendments,  conference  reports,  and  other  matters 
which  await  the  Speaker's  presentation  to  the  House. 


THE  ORDER  OF  BUSINESS  215 

Meantime  petitions  became  a  real  menace  to  the  dis- 
patch of  business.  As  the  country  prospered  the  de- 
mands of  the  Revolutionary  soldier  multiplied.  "Thirty 
years  ago,"  wrote  Adams,  "Uriah  Tracy  used  to  say 
that  the  old  soldiers  never  died.  Had  Uriah  lived  to 
this  time  [1834]  he  would  have  seen  them  multiply.  As 
petitioners  they  are  more  numerous  at  every  session  of 
Congress,  and  of  late,  as  some  of  them  have  died,  their 
widows  have  begun  to  petition;  and  this  day  there 
came  a  petition  from  the  son  of  a  deceased  pensioner 
praying  that  the  pension  may  be  continued  to  him."  1 
In  its  early  practice  the  House  read  all  petitions  pre- 
sented, and  whenever  it  failed  to  act  tradition  and  senti- 
ment raised  the  cry  that  the  constitutional  right  of 
petition  was  impaired.  To  add  to  the  confusion  the 
postponement  of  "orders  of  the  day"  became  so  com- 
mon that  Henry  R.  Storrs,  of  New  York,  facetiously 
complained  that  "we  continue  to  make  orders  of  the 
day  for  to-morrow  while  to-morrow  never  comes."  2  To 
relieve  the  embarrassment  the  House  restricted  peti- 
tions to  each  Monday,  and  gave  "the  morning  hour" 
to  reports,  resolutions,  and  motions;  but  the  advent  of 
John  Quincy  Adams  and  his  numerous  petitions  pray- 
ing for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia fomented  increasing  trouble  and  much  bitterness. 
Adams  declared  it  a  "fundamental  principle  that  the 
House  had  no  right  to  take  away  or  abridge  the  con- 
stitutional right  of  petition."  Nevertheless,  the  House, 
under  the  famous  order  known  as  "Rule  21, "  continued 
to  consign  such  petitions  to  the  table  without  reading. 
1  Diary,  vol.  ix,  p.  1584.  8  21st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  720. 


216    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Finally,  at  the  suggestion  of  Adams  himself,  it  provided 
(1844)  that  every  petition  be  handed  to  the  clerk  to 
list  and  file,  if  not  excluded  under  the  rule. 

This  arrangement  was  supplemented  from  time  to 
time  by  other  parliamentary  devices  for  saving  time 
and  expediting  business.  The  simplest  of  these  took  the 
form  of  unanimous  consents.  A  higher  privilege,  first 
conferred  on  the  Committee  on  Enrolled  Bills,  granted 
the  right  to  report  at  any  time,  a  royal  gift  jealously 
guarded,  but  which  is  now  the  prerogative  of  seventeen 
committees.  The  special  order  appeared  in  1832.  It 
was  superior  to  the  privilege  of  reporting  at  any  time 
because  it  modified  rules  governing  adjournments,  the 
previous  question,  and  other  motions,  but  its  adoption 
by  a  two  thirds  vote,  if  objection  be  made,  limited  its 
usefulness  until  Reed  forced  its  passage  (1883)  by  a 
majority  vote.  About  the  time  the  special  order  ap- 
peared, the  question  of  privilege,  especially  when  in- 
volving the  rights  of  members,  assumed  importance,  and 
although  not  then  so  fully  developed  as  in  later  years, 
it  took  precedence  over  other  business.  Revenue  and 
appropriation  bills  became  intermittently  privileged 
after  1837,  and  in  1850  the  Speaker  held  conference  re- 
ports in  order  at  any  time.  Setting  apart  certain  days  of 
the  week  for  the  consideration  of  specified  legislation  also 
rooted  itself  early  in  the  House  procedure.  As  already 
stated,  the  practice  of  confining  private  business  to  Fri- 
days began  in  1810.  In  1847  the  House  limited  motions 
to  suspend  the  rules  to  each  Monday,  and  in  1870  as- 
signed District  of  Columbia  matters  to  the  third  Friday 
of  each  month.  Subsequent  changes  confined  suspen- 


THE  ORDER  OF  BUSINESS  217 

sion  of  the  rules  to  the  first  and  third  Mondays  (1880) 
and  District  legislation  to  the  second  (1885)  and  fourth 
(1890)  Mondays.  In  1909  Wednesday  of  each  week  was 
given  up  to  bills  on  the  House  and  Union  calendars. 

But  the  flood  of  routine  work  kept  rising.  No  sooner 
had  petitions  been  relegated  to  the  files  without  action 
by  the  House  (1844)  than  members  clamored  for  more 
time  for  the  introduction  of  bills.  At  first  bills  were  not 
numerous.  The  modern  habit  of  using  them  to  advertise 
a  member's  activity  did  not  then  obsess  the  legislative 
mind.  To  the  House  a  bill  was  an  inchoate  law,  to  be 
treated  with  much  deliberation,  and  its  reference  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  generally  proved  fatal.  "It 
is  to-morrow  and  to-morrow  and  to-morrow,"  wrote 
Adams,  "for  bills  thus  referred  must  be  taken  up  in 
the  order  of  their  commitment  and  many  are  never 
reached."  l  This  complaint  sounded  the  sentiment  of  a 
House  bound  to  its  ideals.  But  when  the  fact  developed 
that  a  bill  introduced,  though  not  passed,  benefited  the 
member,  since  it  evidenced  a  disposition  to  serve  his 
constituents,  the  House  (1860)  set  apart  each  alternate 
Monday  for  their  introduction  and  ordered  them  re- 
ferred without  debate.  This  radical  change,  encourag- 
ing members  to  present  bills  on  all  possible  subjects, 
created  such  a  Monday  rush  that  it  increased  their 
number  nearly  twenty-fold  in  twenty  years,  and  nul- 
lified all  notices  of  intention  and  requests  for  leave.2 

1  Diary,  vol.  ix,  p.  113. 

2  Bills  introduced  in  each  Congress  between  1860  and  1870  increased 
from  400  to  4000;  1870  to  1880,  from  4000  to  7000;  1880  to  1890,  from 
7000  to  10,000;  1890  to  1900,  from  10,000  to  17,000.  During  the  sec- 
ond session  of  the  62d  Congress  over  26,000  were  introduced. 


218    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Indeed,  so  quickly  did  the  House,  in  its  desire  to  save 
time,  forget  its  own  rules  that  in  1879,  when  a  member 
insisted  upon  one  day's  notice,  Speaker  Randall  over- 
ruled the  point  of  order,  declaring  that  in  many  years 
of  service  he  had  never  before  heard  the  question 
raised.1 

A  more  aggravating  clog  to  the  dispatch  of  business 
grew  out  of  the  practice  of  referring  all  committee  re- 
ports involving  private  or  public  money  bills  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House  or  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union,  and  of  consider- 
big  public  bills  not  carrying  appropriations  whenever 
reported.  This  unfortunate  arrangement,  which  often 
delayed  important  measures,  led  to  the  creation  of  a  pri- 
vate calendar  (1839)  for  reports  on  private  bills,  and  of 
a  Union  calendar  (1845)  for  reports  on  public  bills  carry- 
ing appropriations.  The  relief  proved  more  apparent 
than  real,  however,  since  other  public  bills  which  con- 
tinued to  be  considered  when  reported,  often  blocked 
the  way  by  provoking  prolonged  debate,  not  infre- 
quently for  obstructive  purposes,  and  to  abate  the  abuse 
the  House  (1880)  created  a  House  calendar  to  which 
such  reports  were  referred  without  debate.  Ten  years 
later  Speaker  Reed  forced  the  rule  providing  that  all 
bills  and  reports  be  filed  with  the  clerk  and  referred  to 
their  proper  calendars.  To  avoid  mistakes  members 
were  privileged  to  move  the  correction  of  improper  refer- 
ences immediately  after  the  approval  of  the  Journal. 
Thus,  during  the  first  century  of  its  existence  the  House 
gradually  eliminated  from  its  floor  work  the  presentation 
1  46th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  425. 


THE  ORDER  OF  BUSINESS  219 

of  petitions,  the  introduction  of  bills,  and  the  submission 
of  reports  —  a  burden  which  had  taxed  its  patience,  con- 
sumed its  time,  and  impeded  its  business. 

Meantime,  the  pressure  of  legislation  compelled  other 
and  frequent  changes  in  the  order  of  business.  To  reach 
"unfinished  business"  and  "the  Speaker's  table  "earlier 
in  the  day,  the  "morning  hour"  for  the  consideration  of 
bills  was  dropped  below  them.  This  made  it  impossible 
to  move  bills  on  the  House  calendar,  which  became 
known  as  a  "legislative  graveyard,"  and  to  make  it  ac- 
cessible Speaker  Carlisle  (1885)  established  a  second 
"morning  hour"  to  follow  the  first,  with  the  provision 
that  a  bill  should  be  displaced  if  not  disposed  of  in 
two  successive  hours.  It  resulted,  of  course,  in  disaster, 
since  the  opponents  of  a  bill  had  only  to  prolong  debate  to 
displace  it.  To  remedy  this  clever  parliamentary  trick, 
business  on  "the  Speaker's  table"  was  again  dropped 
below  the  "morning  hour."  Immediately  requests  mul- 
tiplied for  unanimous  consents  to  secure  the  reference  of 
Senate  bills  on  "the  Speaker's  table,"  so  that  the  addi- 
tional time  intended  for  consideration  of  bills  was  prac- 
tically lost  by  these  time-wasting  motions.  Thus,  in 
getting  out  of  one  trouble,  the  Speaker  plunged  the 
House  into  another.  Carlisle  had  a  velvet  glove;  he 
needed  an  iron  hand. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  course  of  "unfinished 
business"  in  the  patchwork  changes  of  half  a  century. 
Originally  it  preceded  "orders  of  the  day,"  and  to  save 
its  high  privilege  the  House  consolidated  it  with  "the 
Speaker's  table."  But  a  future  adjustment  (1852) 
dropped  it  below  "the  morning  hour,"  so  that  its  busi- 


220    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ness  was  rarely  reached  except  by  unanimous  consent. 
Israel  Washburn,  of  Maine,  the  most  enlightened  parlia- 
mentarian of  his  day,  pronounced  this  arrangement  "  in- 
tolerable," and  in  the  revision  of  1860  he  separated  it 
from  "the  Speaker's  table,"  placing  it  immediately  after 
the  approval  of  the  Journal.  This  sacrificed  "the  morn- 
ing hour,"  and  to  quiet  the  growing  discontent  Speaker 
Randall  (1880)  restored  the  latter  to  its  original  place. 
When  Carlisle  created  (1885)  a  second  "morning  hour," 
as  stated  above,  he  preferred  it  to  "unfinished  business," 
which  again  made  the  latter  inaccessible. 

In  1890  Speaker  Reed  made  an  end  of  such  tinkering. 
He  had  observed  the  futility  of  trying  to  put  four  pints 
into  a  quart  by  rearranging  the  mixture,  and  in  formulat- 
ing the  Reed  Rules  the  great  reformer  of  parliamentary 
methods  applied  his  genius  to  a  solution  of  this  difficult 
problem.  It  could  not  be  done  in  a  week  or  a  month,  and 
while  he  worked  the  House  waited  somewhat  impa- 
tiently. But  during  this  interval  of  suspense,  cross-pur- 
poses, and  innuendoes,  a  better  system  was  perfected, 
original  in  its  conception,  satisfactory  in  its  practice, 
and  destined  to  survive  new  conditions  arising  from  in- 
creased business  and  a  larger  membership.  As  elsewhere 
stated,  he  first  provided  that  all  bills,  resolutions,  and 
committee  reports  be  filed  with  the  clerk;  that  the 
Speaker  refer  all  public  bills  to  their  respective  com- 
mittees; and  that  members  be  allowed  to  correct  such 
references  immediately  after  the  approval  of  the  Jour- 
nal —  a  privilege  which  rarely  engages  the  attention  of 
the  House.  With  a  full  understanding  of  its  impor* 
tance  he  also  authorized  the  Speaker  to  dispose  of  busi* 


THE  ORDER  OF  BUSINESS  221 

ness  "on  the  Speaker's  table"  without  action  by  the 
House,  except  on  House  bills  with  Senate  amendments, 
which  usually  go  to  conference  without  debate.  This 
wiped  out  that  trouble-breeder.  In  like  manner  he  min- 
imized "unfinished  business"  by  limiting  its  jurisdiction 
to  business  transacted  by  the  House  in  its  general  leg- 
islative time  as  distinguished  from  business  transacted 
in  special  periods.  That  is  to  say,  if  a  bill,  taken  up  under 
the  "order  of  business"  by  a  motion  to  go  into  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union, 
is  left  unfinished  at  an  adjournment,  it  comes  up  again 
only  when  "unfinished  business"  in  the  "order  of  busi- 
ness" is  again  reached,  while  business  left  unfinished  in 
the  "morning  hour"  or  on  a  fixed  day  of  the  week  goes 
over  until  the  succeeding  morning  hour  or  fixed  day. 
This  ingenious  device  needed  no  pedestal  to  advertise 
it  as  a  master-stroke. 

Reed  was  not  less  happy  in  his  "morning  hour  for  the 
call  of  committees,"  which  followed  "unfinished  busi- 
ness," for  by  making  the  length  of  the  hour  indefinite  he 
enabled  the  House  to  consider  all  measures  called  up,  or, 
if  so  disposed  at  the  end  of  sixty  minutes,  to  pass  from 
bills  on  the  House  calendar  into  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  State  of  the  Union  for  the  consideration  of 
bills  on  the  Union  calendar.  The  elasticity  of  this  ar- 
rangement, making  it  responsive  to  the  mood  of  the 
House,  gave  a  majority  perfect  freedom  to  keep  at  work 
as  long  as  it  desired,  undisturbed  by  obstructive  tactics. 
Indeed,  the  right  to  pass  from  one  calendar  to  another 
and  from  the  House  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
became  the  brightest  star  in  Reed's  "order  of  busi- 


222    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ness,"  which  has  operated  with  entire  satisfaction  and 
without  material  change  for  the  past  quarter  of  a 
century.1 

To  one  unskilled  in  parliamentary  procedure  based  on 
the  House  rules,  the  application  of  these  expedients  is 
confusing,  for  the  "order  of  business"  may  be  inter- 
rupted by  questions  of  privilege,  privileged  bills,  con- 
ference reports,  special  orders,  measures  vetoed  by  the 
President,  and  bills  coming  from  a  prior  day  with  the 
previous  question.  Hence,  when  the  cry  of  "Regular 
order"  is  heard,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine  quickly  what 
is  in  order.  But  the  Chair,  like  a  train-dispatcher,  is 
presumed  to  know  what  has  the  right  of  way.  Indeed, 
the  running  of  trains  on  a  single-track  railroad  may  be 
likened  to  the  passage  of  measures  through  the  House. 
The  freight  gives  way  to  a  local  passenger  train,  which 
sidetracks  for  an  express,  which  in  turn  sidetracks  for  the 
limited,  while  all  usually  keep  out  of  the  way  of  a  relief 
train.  Meantime,  when  a  train  having  the  right  of  way 
passes,  the  delayed  ones  begin  to  move  until  again 
obliged  to  sidetrack.  In  like  manner  the  "order  of  busi- 
ness "  gives  way  to  business  fixed  for  Mondays,  Wed- 
nesdays, and  Fridays,  which  in  turn  may  be  sidetracked 
for  privileged  bills,  conference  reports,  and  special  or- 

1  The  following  is  Speaker  Reed's  "order  of  business"  adopted  in 
1890:  (1)  Prayer  by  the  chaplain;  (2)  reading  and  approval  of  the 
Journal;  (3)  correction  of  reference  of  public  bills;  (4)  disposal  of  busi- 
ness on  the  Speaker's  table;  (5)  unfinished  business;  (6)  the  morning 
hour  for  the  consideration  of  bills  called  up  by  committees;  (7)  motions 
to  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union; 
(8)  orders  of  the  day.  (Rule  xxrv,  sec.  1.)  Although  mentioned  in 
the  order  of  business,  "orders  of  the  day"  became  obsolete  many 
years  before. 


THE  ORDER  OF  BUSINESS  223 

ders,  while  a  question  of  privilege  generally  takes  pre- 
cedence of  all  other  business. 

Nevertheless,  the  House  is  not  a  slave  to  its  own 
orders.  Although  certain  committees  have  the  right  to 
report  at  any  time,  which  carries  the  privilege  of  imme- 
diate consideration,  any  member  may  demand,  before 
debate  begins,  that  the  question  of  consideration  be  first 
put.  This  cannot  be  required  upon  a  bill  brought  up  by 
unanimous  consent  or  by  a  special  order  providing  for  its 
immediate  consideration,  for  the  House  has  already  con- 
sented. But  it  may  be  raised  against  any  other  business, 
although  it  possesses  the  high  privilege  of  a  conference 
report  or  the  right  of  a  member  to  his  seat.  A  refusal 
to  consider,  however,  simply  postpones  the  measure  to 
another  day.  Hence,  when  conference  reports  or  privi- 
leged bills  or  special  orders  to  be  carried  out  on  a  future 
day  are  presented,  the  House,  if  it  prefers  to  proceed 
with  other  business,  declines  their  consideration.  This 
was  the  practice  as  early  as  1808,  Speaker  Varnum 
declaring  the  question  not  debatable.  John  Randolph 
spoke  of  it  tartly  as  "an  engine  of  oppression  in  the 
hands  of  a  majority,"  but  Henry  Clay  thought  the  right 
of  one  or  two  members  to  compel  a  deliberative  body  to 
consider  a  proposition  which  it  is  disinclined  to  take  up 
"can  be  maintained  only  by  reversing  the  rule  that  a 
plurality  is  to  govern,  and  would,  as  to  that  particular 
subject,  make  the  mover  and  his  second  superior  to 
the  whole  body."  l  After  twice  refusing  to  abandon  the 
practice,  the  House  denied  its  use  unless  demanded  by 
some  member  or  deemed  necessary  by  the  Speaker.2 

1  12th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  1472  (footnote). 

2  15th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  445. 


224    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

The  revision  of  the  rules  in  1880  limited  it  to  the  demand 
of  a  member  only.1 

Under  the  present  (1915)  rules  of  the  House  two 
Mondays  of  each  month  are  assigned  to  the  considera- 
tion of  business  relating  to  the  District  of  Columbia  and 
alternately  two  other  Mondays  to  the  consideration  of 
motions  for  unanimous  consent,  for  suspension  of  the 
rules,  and  for  motions  to  discharge  committees.  On 
Wednesday  of  each  week  (known  as  "Calendar  Wed- 
nesday") no  business  is  in  order  except  bills  already 
reported  and  on  the  House  or  Union  calendar,  unless 
such  business  be  dispensed  with  by  a  two  thirds  vote. 
The  necessity  for  such  vote  cannot  be  avoided  even  in 
favor  of  an  appropriation  bill;  nor  can  it  be  avoided  by 
a  report  from  the  Committee  on  Rules.  So  zealously 
have  the  prerogatives  of  this  day  been  observed  that  it 
has  come  to  be  spoken  of  as  "Holy  Wednesday."  On 
Friday  of  each  week  business  on  the  private  calendar 
has  the  preference.  On  Tuesdays,  Thursdays,  and 
Saturdays  the  regular  order  is  the  consideration  of  bills 
reported  by  committees  and  of  bills  on  the  House  and 
Union  calendars.  This  order  of  business  is  liable  to  be 
interfered  with  by  the  interjection  of  privileged  matters, 
such  as  revenue  or  appropriation  bills,  conference  re- 
ports, and  the  like,  or  by  a  report  from  the  Committee 
on  Rules.  Prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  unanimous  con- 
sent rule,  recognitions  were  in  order  at  the  will  of  the 
Speaker.  Consideration  of  business  by  unanimous  con- 
sent can  now  be  had  only  when  the  unanimous  consent 
calendar  is  in  order. 

1  Rule  xvi,  sec.  3. 


THE  ORDER  OF  BUSINESS  225 

Business  in  which  the  House  is  engaged  in  its  general 
legislative  time  as  distinguished  from  the  special  periods 
set  aside  for  classes  of  business,  remaining  unfinished  at 
adjournment,  is  in  order  the  next  day;  while  unfinished 
classified  business  is  in  order  to  be  resumed  whenever 
the  class  of  business  to  which  it  belongs  is  in  order  under 
the  rules. 


CHAPTER  XII 

COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK 

COMMITTEES  report  or  reject  whatever  is  properly  re- ' 
ferred  to  them  under  the  rules  of  the  House.  Originally 
the  select  committee  was  the  only  organ  for  collecting 
information,  for  sifting  evidence,  or  for  considering  bills 
and  other  legislative  matters.  At  present,  however,  it 
is  used  for  purposes  of  ceremony,  or  to  consider  special 
matters  about  which  the  House  wishes  to  institute  in- 
quiries. It  consists  of  three  or  more  members,  is  often^ 
endowed  with  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and 
upon  making  a  final  report  it  ceases  to  exist,  unless  new 
matter  is  referred  to  it  in  open  House. 

A  joint  select  committee,  composed  of  senators  and 
House  members,  is  usually  created  by  a  simple  resolu- 
tion, has  a  fixed  or  limited  jurisdiction,  and  expires  with 
the  session,  although  it  may  be  continued  by  a  vote  of 
the  two  bodies.  The  Speaker  appoints  the  House  mem- 
bers, but  the  first-named  senator  acts  as  chairman. 
Unlike  a  conference  committee  it  votes  per  capita,  and 
a  quorum  is  a  majority  of  the  whole  number.  It  may  be 
instructed  by  both  Houses  acting  concurrently,  or  by 
either  House  acting  independently,  and  it  may  report 
to  both  or  either  according  to  its  instructions.  Thus  the 
historic  Joint  Select  Committee  on  the  Conduct  of  the 
Civil  War,  being  directed  by  the  Senate  in  1862  to  in- 
vestigate the  treatment  of  dead  soldiers  at  Manassas, 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     227 

reported  only  to  the  Senate.  The  advantages  of  this  com- 
mittee were  especially  disclosed  during  the  Civil  War, 
in  the  evolution  of  the  Reconstruction  policy,  and  in  the 
settlement  of  the  electoral  count  of  1857,  growing  out  of 
Wisconsin's  failure  to  cast  its  vote  on  the  day  prescribed 
by  law. 

A  joint  standing  committee  is  ordinarily  created  by 
statute.  Its  procedure  resembles  that  of  the  joint  select 
committee  and  its  use  is  confined  to  regulating  inter- 
course between  the  two  bodies.  This  committee  is  con- 
tinuous, although  its  powers,  during  the  recess  after  the 
expiration  of  a  Congress,  reside  with  the  Senate  portion. 
At  present  there  are  four  such  committees,  namely, 
Printing,  Enrolled  Bills,  the  Congressional  Library,  and 
the  Disposition  of  Useless  Executive  Papers. 

A  conference  committee  is  practically  two  distinct 
committees.  The  number  of  senators  may  exceed  the 
House  members,  or  vice  versa,  but  the  difference  is  im- 
material, since  each  acts  by  its  own  majority.  It  is 
created  whenever  the  two  Houses  disagree  upon  any 
pending  legislation,  and  expires  upon  the  accomplish- 
ment or  failure  of  its  purpose.  In  the  earlier  practice 
the  Speaker,  ignoring  majority  and  minority  divisions, 
appointed  members  specially  fitted  to  exploit  the  atti- 
tude of  the  House,  and  if  one  set  failed  another  was 
named.  But  under  the  modern  practice  members  are 
selected  from  the  committee  or  subcommittee  which  re- 
ports the  bill,  —  usually  the  chairman  and  next  mem- 
ber in  rank,  with  the  ranking  minority  member,  —  who 
continue  to  act  to  the  end.  Indeed,  so  uniform  is  this 
custom  that  it  created  much  comment  and  some  feeling 


228    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

when  Speaker  Cannon,  in  appointing  managers  for  the 
tariff  bill  of  1909,  preferred  a  member  of  the  committee 
over  one  of  his  colleagues  who  outranked  him. 

In  the  early  history  of  the  House  the  select  committee, 
as  already  stated,  was  used  exclusively  for  the  considera- 
tion of  bills,  resolutions,  and  other  legislative  matters. 
As  business  increased  and  kindred  subjects  became 
scattered,  however,  a  tendency  to  concentrate  inau- 
gurated a  system  of  standing  committees.  It  rooted  it- 
self slowly.  There  was  an  evident  distrust  of  the  cen- 
tralizing influence  of  permanent  bodies.  Besides,  it  took 
important  business  from  the  many  and  gave  it  to  a  few, 
one  standing  committee  of  three  or  five  members  often 
taking  the  place  of  half  a  dozen  select  committees.  But 
long  before  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  the  standing 
committee,  supplanting  its  rival,  had  become  the  most 
important  organ  of  the  House.  It  is  "the  eye,  the  ear, 
the  hand,  and  very  often  the  brain  of  the  House,"  says 
Thomas  B.  Reed.  "Freed  from  the  very  great  incon- 
venience of  numbers,  it  can  study  a  question,  obtain  full 
information,  and  put  the  proposed  legislation  into  shape 
for  final  action."  l 

The  membership  of  a  standing  committee  is  fixed  by 
rule,  varying  from  five  to  twenty-two,  depending  largely 
upon  the  membership  of  the  House.  For  a  century  the 
average  did  not  exceed  eight.  In  the  present  Congress 
(1915)  it  is  fourteen.  Majority  and  minority  representa- 
tion often  varies  with  each  Congress.  The  proportion  is 
not  infrequently  nine  to  seven,  or  ten  to  eight,  or  eleven 
to  nine.  If  the  minority  party  be  numerically  small  it  is 
1  Parliamentary  Rules,  p.  59. 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     229 

sometimes  fixed  at  two  thirds  to  one  third.  Such  dis- 
proportion, even  if  technically  justified,  is  unfortunate, 
for  it  is  likely  to  minimize,  if  it  does  not  absolutely  de- 
stroy, the  wholesome  influence  of  a  vigilant  opposition. 

In  selecting  a  standing  committee  custom  favors  the 
retention  of  its  oldest  members,  thus  creating  a  corps  of 
legislative  experts,  who  quickly  detect  the  weak  spots 
in  a  bill  or  the  duplication  of  some  provision  previously 
reported  or  rejected.  The  member  first  named  formerly 
became  chairman.  If  he  resigned  the  committee  elected 
a  successor,  but  if  he  died  the  Speaker  appointed.  Under 
the  present  rule  (1915)  a  committee  elects  its  chairman, 
and  if  a  vacancy  occurs  by  death  or  resignation  the 
House  elects.  Whatever  the  form  of  selection,  however, 
seniority  usually  governs.  Thus,  it  requires  many  years 
of  faithful  service  before  one  becomes  the  chairman  of  a 
great  committee,  while  the  chances  are  that  when  the 
goal  is  reached  the  home  district  changes  its  representa- 
tive or  the  majority  passes  to  the  opposite  party.  For 
this  reason  less  than  seventy-five  chairmen  out  of  four- 
teen hundred  have  served  to  exceed  two  terms  each,  the 
great  majority  being  limited  to  one  term.  Nevertheless, 
the  record  shows  notable  service,  fourteen  chairmen 
having  served  four  terms  each,  six  for  five  terms,  two  for 
six  terms,  and  one  for  ten  terms.1 

In  collecting  information  a  committee  usually  hears 
cabinet  officials  and  other  experts.  Although  its  hear- 
ings are  not  town  meetings  "  where  anybody  is  at  liberty 
to  attend  and  express  his  views," 2  it  listens  to  any  one 

1  Thomas  Newton,  of  Virginia. 

2  A.  Lawrence  Lowell,  The  Government  of  England,  vol.  I,  p.  268. 


230    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

who  possesses  the  knowledge  it  seeks.  Such  hearings  are 
open.  Other  sessions  are  executive  and  closed,  the  rules 
forbidding  a  disclosure  of  the  proceedings  upon  the  floor 
of  the  House  except  as  to  matters  formally  reported. 
Yet  information  is  never  stifled.  The  press  usually 
obtains  it  whenever  the  committee  door  opens.  As 
elsewhere  stated,  only  a  majority  of  a  quorum  can  au- 
thorize a  report.  Strictly  speaking,  a  minority  report  is 
unknown  to  the  House  procedure,  but  the  minority  at- 
tains the  same  object  by  submitting  its  views,  which  are 
printed  with  the  report.  If  a  bill  is  unreported  for  fifteen 
days  any  member  of  the  House  may  file  with  the  clerk  a 
motion  in  writing  to  discharge  the  committee  from  its 
further  consideration.  This  motion  is  then  placed  on  a 
calendar  of  such  motions  and  must  await  a  time  for  its 
consideration  under  the  rules. 

The  right  to  report  at  any  time  distinguishes  the  more 
important  standing  committees.  This  very  high  privi- 
lege, which  carries  with  it  the  right  of  present  considera- 
tion, is  sparingly  bestowed.  It  was  early  extended  to  the 
Committees  on  Enrolled  Bills  and  Elections,  because 
their  reports  involved  bills  already  passed  and  seats  of 
members  still  in  doubt.  Afterward  the  Committee  on 
Printing  was  similarly  favored.  But  the  House,  seeming 
to  distrust  the  gift  of  such  an  extraordinary  right,  with- 
held it  for  three  quarters  of  a  century  from  the  great 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  except  for  brief  periods 
in  1850  and  1851.  Subsequently  the  several  appropria- 
tion committees  received  the  privilege,  and  in  1885  the 
House  extended  it  to  Public  Lands.  Five  years  later 
Territories,  Invalid  Pensions,  and  Rules  were  likewise 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     231 

favored,  although  usage  had  long  accorded  it  to  the  last. 
But  the  right  is  still  jealously  guarded.  Even  the  Ju- 
diciary Committee,  which  Daniel  Webster  headed  and 
upon  which  every  lawyer  deems  it  a  great  honor  to  serve, 
remains  unprivileged.  In  exercising  this  high  preroga- 
tive committees  may  not  include  matters  not  specified 
in  the  rule  or  construe  it  too  broadly.  Thus,  the  words 
"raising  revenue,"  for  illustration,  do  not  cover  bills 
providing  for  a  tariff  commission,  or  the  phrase  "print- 
ing for  Congress"  include  work  done  for  executive 
departments.  It  is  likewise  held  that  the  insertion  of 
unprivileged  matter,  unless  essential  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  what  is  privileged,  destroys  all  privilege. 
*~  The  creation  of  standing  committees  may  be  said  to 
mark  with  historic  accuracy  the  growth  of  the  Republic. 
In  the  first  decade  the  House  established  only  four  of 
this  class.1  But  the  new  century,  with  its  important 
innovations,  wrought  a  great  change  in  the  legislative 
mind.  Ways  and  Means  demanded  men  of  experience 
as  well  as  of  capacity,  and  in  1802  the  House  promoted 
it  from  a  select  to  a  standing  committee.  The  Louisiana 
Purchase  in  1803  made  necessary  a  Committee  on  Public 
Lands,  while  a  growing  capital  and  a  more  rapidly  grow- 
ing mail  service  required  (1808)  Committees  on  the 
District  of  Columbia  and  on  Post-Offices  and  Post- 
Roads. 

Very  soon  the  need  of  additional  courts  and  legisla- 
tion "touching  judicial  proceedings"  demanded  a  Com- 
mittee on  the  Judiciary  (1813).  The  War  of  1812  made 

1  The  Committees  on  Elections,  Claims,  Enrolled  Bills,  and  Com- 
merce and  Manufactures. 


232    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Pensions  and  War  Claims  permament  and  a  Committee 
on  Public  Expenditure  necessary.  Near  the  close  of 
Madison's  Administration  (1816),  the  House,  in  response 
to  the  clamor  for  "a  house-cleaning,"  established  six 
committees  to  supervise  the  expenditures  of  the  exec- 
utive departments.  On  motion  of  Lewis  Williams,  of 
North  Carolina,  the  veteran  farmer-member,  a  Com- 
mittee on  Agriculture  had  its  birth  in  1820.  Two  years 
later  the  affairs  of  the  army  and  navy,  which  had  en- 
grossed the  attention  of  numerous  select  committees, 
were  committed  to  standing  committees  on  Military 
Affairs  and  Naval  Affairs.  In  the  same  year  a  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Affairs  took  charge  of  the  relations 
of  the  United  States  with  foreign  nations.  The  rush  of 
settlers  into  the  great  West  necessitated  the  creation  of 
Committees  on  Indian  Affairs  and  on  Territories  (1825). 
An  elaborate  system  of  internal  improvements  justified 
the  establishment  in  1831  of  a  Committee  on  Roads 
and  Canals.  Then  came  Committees  on  Public  Build- 
ings and  Grounds  (1837),  Patents  (1837),  Printing 
(1846),  and  Coinage,  Weights,  and  Measures  (1864). 

The  close  of  the  Civil  War  marked  a  new  era  in  their 
creation.  A  Committee  on  Education,  which  had  for- 
merly provoked  angry  opposition,  found  admittance  in 
1867  to  the  sisterhood  of  standing  committees,  while  in- 
dustries, internal  improvements,  and  social  affairs  re- 
ceived recognition.  From  1865  to  1893  the  creation  of 
eleven  committees  exploited  rivers  and  harbors,  labor, 
mining,  irrigation,  ventilation,  immigration,  reform  in 
the  civil  service,  and  the  liquor  traffic.  After  the 
Spanish- American  War  came  the  establishment  of  Com- 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     233 

mittees  on  Insular  Affairs  and  Industrial  Arts.  Several 
of  these  committees  seemed  to  exist  for  no  other  purpose 
than  to  furnish  rooms  for  their  chairmen  —  a  highly 
prized  perquisite  in  the  absence  of  an  office  building. 
But  after  its  erection  (1909)  the  House  dropped  the 
Committees  on  Ventilation  and  Acoustics,  Militia,  Man- 
ufactures, Private  Land  Claims,  Pacific  Railroads,  and 
Levee  Improvements,  leaving  a  total  of  fifty-five. 

But  if  making  and  dropping  committees  caused  lit- 
tle complaint  their  division  encountered  great  opposi- 
tion. The  separation  of  Manufactures  and  Commerce 
precipitated  a  contest  between  free  trade  and  protec- 
tion. The  purpose  of  the  former  was  to  foster  infant 
industries,  but  none  of  the  twenty-two  revenue  bills 
reported  by  Ways  and  Means  between  1794  and  1816 
benefited  the  manufacturer.  For  this  reason  the  ad- 
vocates of  protection  began  an  active  propaganda  to 
separate  Commerce  from  Manufactures  for  the  purpose 
of  having  all  tariff  matters  referred  to  the  latter,  and  to 
the  surprise  of  free-traders  the  House,  in  1819,  made  the 
division.  Thereupon  Speaker  Clay  packed  the  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures  with  the  friends  of  protection. 
Thus  it  became  the  great  rival  of  Ways  and  Means,  re- 
porting the  historic  revenue  bill  of  1824,  the  famous 
Woolens  Bill  of  1827,  the  so-called  "Tariff  of  Abomina- 
tions" in  1828,  the  Mallory  Bill  of  1830,  and  the  Adams 
Bill  of  1832.  But  after  Clay's  compromise  measure  of 
1833  its  influence  began  to  wane,  and  although  it  reported 
on  wool  duties  as  late  as  1864,  it  had  years  before  lost  its 
place  among  forceful  committees. 

The  division  of  Ways  and  Means  also  revealed  the  in- 


234    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

disposition  of  committees  to  surrender  any  of  their  pre- 
rogatives. This  great  Committee  inherited  its  absolute 
control  of  receipts  and  expenses  from  its  prototype  in 
the  British  Commons,  and  no  one  possessed  the  temer- 
ity to  suggest  divorcing  such  closely  related  subjects 
until  increasing  and  varied  needs  multiplied  supply  bills. 
At  the  outset  a  single  annual  appropriation  bill  met  all 
wants.  But  in  1823  a  separate  bill  for  fortifications  ap- 
peared. Then  came  bills  for  pensions  (1826),  rivers  and 
harbors  (1828),  post-offices  and  post-roads  (1844),  de- 
ficiencies (1844),  consular  and  diplomatic  service  (1856), 
and  finally,  in  1857,  for  legislative,  executive,  and  judi- 
cial expenses.  Moreover,  the  habit  of  burdening  Ways 
and  Means  with  whatever  pertained  to  the  finances 
swelled  its  jurisdiction  until  it  not  only  included  revenue 
measures  and  appropriation  bills,  but  the  control  of  the 
war  debt,  the  supervision  of  banking  and  currency,  and 
the  direction  of  coinage,  weights,  and  measures.  It 
seemed  like  an  Atlas  bearing  upon  its  shoulders  all  the 
business  of  the  House.  Other  committees  might  author- 
ize, but  Ways  and  Means  alone  could  appropriate. 
Experienced  members  of  Military  and  Naval  Affairs 
recommended  in  vain,  if  Ways  and  Means  thought  their 
recommendations  extravagant  or  unnecessary.  So  con- 
tinuously did  revenue  and  appropriation  bills  occupy 
the  floor  that  the  chairman  became  in  fact  as  well  as 
officially  the  "floor  leader,"  ranking  in  influence  next  to 
the  Speaker.  He  arranged  the  order  of  business,  indicated 
hours  for  adjournment,  and  fixed  the  time  for  closing  the 
long  sessions. 

Members  marveled  that  one  committee  of  seven  or  nine 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     235 

men  should  desire  to  do  so  much  of  the  real  work  of  the 
House.  It  seemed  possible  to  divide  it,  since  raising  and 
spending  revenue  were  quite  distinct;  but  whenever  the 
suggestion  of  separating  such  kindred  subjects  became 
serious,  it  was  pronounced  destructive  of  intelligent 
legislation.  Even  after  the  Civil  War  had  increased  ex- 
penses tenfold,  and  revenue-raising  harassed  the  most 
astute  financiers,  the  plea  that  one  committee  should  con- 
trol both  receipts  and  expenditures  continued  to  domi- 
nate the  House.  Finally,  in  1865,  when  the  inability  of 
members  longer  to  endure  the  physical  and  mental  strain 
became  apparent,  the  jurisdiction  of  Ways  and  Means 
over  appropriations,  banking  and  currency,  and  Pacific 
Railroads  was  transferred  to  three  committees  having 
corresponding  names.    In  submitting   the   resolution, 
Samuel  S.  Cox,  then  of  Ohio,  declared  that  "powerfully 
as  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  is  constituted,  even 
their  powers  of  endurance,  physical  and  mental,  are  not 
adequate  to  the  great  duty  imposed  by  the  emergencies 
of  this  historic  time.'*    Thaddeus  Stevens,  the  distin- 
guished chairman,  expressed  indifference.    He  had  an 
innate  passion  to  dominate  and  a  capacity  almost  equal 
to  his  passion,  but  to  head  the  new  committee  satisfied 
his  ambition.  Justin  S.  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  one  of  the 
kindliest  of  men,  represented  the  revenue  side.    If  Ste- 
vens was  more  powerful  in  debate,  no  one  rivalled-Morrill 
in  practical  wisdom  or  prudence.  He  had  drawn  the  great 
tariff  bill  of  1861,  bearing  his  name,  on  which  every  pro- 
tective tariff  has  since  been  modeled,  and  although  he 
rarely  replied  to  those  who  differed  from  him,  he  never 
yielded  his  conclusions.    So,  while  admitting  that  the 


236    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  might  be  "over- 
worked," since  "it  labored  day  and  night,  week  days 
and  Sundays,"  he  thought  it  "indispensable"  that  one 
committee  "should  raise  and  spend  the  revenue"  in 
order  "to  make  both  ends  meet."  But  the  House  had 
settled  the  question  in  advance,  and  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  without  division  made  Morrill  chairman  of 
Ways  and  Means  and  Stevens  chairman  of  Appropria- 
tions. 

Twelve  years  later  the  great  contest  began  for  a  divi- 
sion of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations.  At  the  time 
of  the  Committee's  creation  Robert  C.  Schenck,  of 
Ohio,  touched  a  popular  chord  when  he  observed  that 
committees  having  jurisdiction  of  kindred  subjects 
should  control  the  several  appropriation  bills.  This 
sentiment  sourced  in  jealousy.  The  Committee  on  Com- 
merce, which  had  for  years  at  irregular  intervals  formu- 
lated river  and  harbor  items,  never  ceased  to  resent  their 
revision  by  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  and  later 
by  the  new  Committee  on  Appropriations.  It  seemed 
inexcusable  that  one  committee,  without  additional  in- 
formation, should  possess  power  to  modify  the  carefully 
studied  work  of  another.  Nevertheless,  the  restraint  of 
precedent  proved  sufficient  until  the  control  of  the 
House,  for  the  first  time  in  sixteen  years,  passed  to  the 
Democrats.  This  brought  John  H.  Reagan,  of  Texas, 
to  the  front. 

Reagan  had  left  the  House  in  1861  to  become  Post- 
master-General of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  and  upon 
his  reappearance  in  the  Forty-fourth  Congress  (1875) 
Speaker  Kerr  assigned  him  to  the  Commiteee  on  Com- 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     237 

merce.  He  was  a  likable  man.  Although  obstinate,  with 
a  disposition  to  dominate,  he  was  not  unamiable.  More- 
over, he  was  energetic,  astute,  and  a  forceful  debater  — 
clear  in  statement  and  terse  in  expression.  His  speeches 
had  no  brilliant  passages,  no  hint  of  elevated  thought, 
no  single  sentence  which  any  one  would  care  to  repeat 
or  remember  after  the  emergency  had  passed.  But  what 
he  said  exactly  served  his  purpose.  He  knew  his  time, 
his  opportunity,  and  his  men.  He  knew,  too,  what  was 
necessary  besides  debate  to  get  a  bill  through,  and  when 
he  reported  the  river  and  harbor  allowances  in  1877,  in- 
stead of  referring  them  under  the  rule  to  the  Committee 
on  Appropriations,  he  moved  to  suspend  the  rules  and 
pass  the  bill.  This  would  avoid  the  dreaded  pruning- 
knife  of  a  disinterested  arbiter,  and  more  than  two 
thirds  of  the  House  came  to  the  support  of  his  coup 
d'etat.1  A  year  later  he  successfully  invoked  similar 
methods.2 

The  revisers  of  the  rules  hi  1880  did  not  approve 
Reagan's  tactics.  They  invaded  the  system  of  control, 
opened  the  door  to  extravagance,  and  made  other  com- 
mittees envious.  Accordingly  the  revisers  recommended 
restoring  the  authority  of  the  Committee  on  Appropria- 
tions to  revise  river  and  harbor  allowances.  A  sharp 
discussion  followed.  Joseph  C.  S.  Blackburn,  of  Ken- 
tucky, a  fluent  speaker  and  ready  debater,  argued  that 
the  maintenance  of  a  just  relation  between  receipts  and 
expenses,  and  a  fair  division  of  the  former  among  the 
various  departments,  required  that  all  appropriations 

1  45th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  2359-60. 
8  45th  Cong.,  2d  Sess..  Record,  p.  2713. 


238    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

be  reported  by  one  committee.  James  A.  Garfield,  a  co- 
reviser,  came  promptly  to  Blackburn's  aid.  Perhaps,  at 
times,  when  the  great  orator  had  not  reached  the  bottom 
of  a  subject  himself,  his  statesmanship  was  of  the  willow 
and  not  of  the  oak.  But  he  had  gone  to  the  root  of  this 
question  through  observation  and  experience,  and  his 
remarks  pierced  the  core  of  the  matter.  There  never 
was  a  time,  he  said,  when  a  committee,  having  a  special 
subject  in  charge,  did  not  resist  a  cut  in  its  appropria- 
tions. For  this  reason  committees  entrusted  with  legis- 
lation should  not  report  appropriations.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  added,  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  be- 
comes a  fair,  impartial  arbiter,  because  it  bears  no 
special  relation  to  any  department,  but  having  a  survey 
of  the  whole  field  it  reduces  all  appropriations  to  an 
economical  basis  and  within  the  limits  of  the  public 
revenue. 

To  this  Reagan  vigorously  dissented.  He  insisted 
that  the  Committee  on  Commerce,  to  which  the  river 
and  harbor  bill  rightfully  belonged,  could  appropriate 
as  economically  as  the  Committee  on  Appropriations, 
and  he  moved  that  it  be  privileged  to  report  directly  to 
the  House  for  its  consideration  and  disposition.  It  was 
a  bold  move.  It  defied  Speaker  Randall,  challenged  the 
floor  leader,  and  attacked  the  most  powerful  committee 
of  the  House.  But  the  selfish  influences  that  supported 
him  in  the  preceding  Congress  again  rallied  to  his  assist- 
ance.1 Indeed,  so  determined  was  the  House  to  un- 
fetter itself  that  it  granted  similar  privileges  to  the 
Committee  on  Agriculture.2 

1  46th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  1260-62.          s  Ibid.,  p.  684. 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK*     239 

Tkis  action  fanned  the  flame  of  jealousy.  If  Com- 
merce and  Agriculture  can  report  appropriations,  asked 
the  then  "Progressive,"  why  not  distribute  other  ap- 
propriation bills  to  the  Committees  on  Foreign,  Mili- 
tary, Naval,  and  Indian  Affairs?  Coupled  with  this 
feeling  was  one  of  increasing  discontent  growing  out  of 
the  so-called  "Holman  amendment,"  adopted  in  1875, 
which  permitted  an  appropriation  bill  to  change  existing 
law,  "provided  it  be  germane  to  the  subject-matter  and 
retrenches  expenses."  1  Prior  to  its  adoption  such  a 
proposed  change  would  be  ruled  out  on  a  point  of  order; 
but  under  the  rule  as  amended  the  Committee  on  Appro- 
priations had  authority  to  decrease  a  salary,  abolish  an 
office,  or  recast  all  legislation  concerning  the  public 
service  not  only  as  to  the  amount  to  be  appropriated, 
but  as  to  the  size  and  condition  of  that  service.  Thus  it 
invaded,  if  it  did  not  practically  absorb,  the  jurisdiction 
of  other  committees  controlling  kindred  subjects.  More- 
over, in  its  desire  to  economize  the  Committee  occasion- 
ally manifested  a  disposition  to  use  the  amendment 
arbitrarily.  As  both  parties  had  refused  to  repeal  it, 
however,  the  resentment  aroused  against  the  Com- 
mittee proved  insufficient  to  provoke  a  rebellion  until 
William  R.  Morrison,  of  Illinois,  took  advantage  of  it 
with  the  hope  of  weakening  the  power  of  Samuel  J. 
Randall,  its  chairman. 

Morrison  was  a  radical  tariff  reforiner.    More  than 

that,  he  was  a  bold,  forceful  organizer.   He  had  served 

as  speaker  in  the  Illinois  legislature,  had  led  a  regiment 

against  Fort  Donelson  where  he  was  severely  wounded, 

1  44th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Rule  cxx,  now  Rule  xxi. 


240    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

and  after  the  war  had  entered  the  Forty-third  Congress 
(1873).  Alert,  cool-headed,  and  resourceful,  he  believed 
every  means  lawful  to  a  patriot,  and  when  the  Demo- 
crats carried  the  House  in  1874  he  played  a  conspicu- 
ous part  in  the  selection  of  Speaker  Kerr,  who  made  him 
fJTg.jrmfl.ffl  of  Wflys  fl^ld  Mftana.  Then  he  discovered  that 
Samuel  J.  Randall  measured  Democratic  interests  and 
policies  by  the  Pennsylvania  standard,  and  with  the 
temerity  of  a  dashing  soldier  he  struck  with  his  lance's 
point  the  shield  of  the  formidable  Templar.  Older 
members  heard  with  astonishment,  and  after  encounter- 
ing Randall's  terse,  withering  sentences,  which  he  could 
summon  to  his  aid  with  all  the  force  of  scornful  invective, 
Morrison  knew  he  had  been  soundly  whipped.  More- 
over, at  the  opening  of  the  Forty-fifth  Congress  (1877) 
Randall,  then  Speaker,  transferred  him  from  the  head 
of  Way^jand^jMeans  to  the  chairmanship  of  Public 
Lands.  Although  this  savage  blow  left  a  deep  wound, 
Morrison  discreetly  nursed  his  resentment.  He  recog- 
nized that  Randall,  a  born  leader  of  men,  without  a  peer 
in  his  party,  was  the  master,  about  whom  clustered 
strong,  dominating  men.  Fernando  Wood,  of  New  York, 
topped  Ways  and  Means;  John  D.  C.  Atkins,  of  Tennes- 
see, succeeded  William  S.  Holman  on  Appropriations; 
A.  H.  Buckner,  of  Missouri,  relieved  Samuel  S.  Cox  on 
Banking  and  Currency;  John  H.  Reagan  headed  Inter- 
state Commerce;  and  Alexander  H.Stephens, of  Georgia, 
and  Milton  Sayler,  of  Ohio,  sat  with  the  Speaker  on 
Rules,  while  with  rare  tact  Randall  minimized  discon- 
tent by  the  retention  of  a  score  of  Kerr's  original 
chairmen. 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     241 

But  Morrison's  courage  was  not  broken.  He  went  on 
just  as  if  nothing  had  happened,  and  when  the  Demo- 
crats, after  an  interregnum  of  two  years,  returned  to 
power  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  (1883),  he  boldly 
took  advantage  of  the  reaction  against  the  "Pennsyl- 
vania standard,"  picked^  Carlisle  for  Speaker,  organ- 
izejLa^tariff-for-Tevejaufijcanipaign,  and  carried  the  cau- 
cus by  a  majority  ^_twjenly4our_oxex_ihe  combined 
vote^of  Randall  and  Samuel  S.  Cox,  jc 


This  again^made  Inm  chairman  of  Ways  and  Means, 
and,  by  ..courtesy.  Randall  headed  Appropriations.  Sub- 
sequently, Morrison  reported  a  bill  making  a  horizontal 
tariff  reduction  of  twenty  per  cent,  which  gave  him  the 
euphonious  title  of  "Horizontal  Bill."  For  the  moment 
it  looked  as  if  thelllinoisan  had  more  than  self-confidence 
behind  him.  But  after  getting  into  Committee  of  the 
Whole  he  found  Randall,  McGregor-like,  at  the  head  of 
the  table,  with  forty  Democrats  beside  him.  These 
held  the  balance  of  power,  and  when  they  joined  the 
Republicans  in  striking  out  the  enacting  clause,  "Hori- 
zontal Bill"  stigmatized  them  as  "Randall  and  his  forty 
thieves."  2  This  humiliating  defeat  became  historic. 
Members  shook  their  heads,  said  they  knew  how  it 
would  be,  and  prophesied  that  it  ended  the  career  of  the 
audacious  leader.  But  they  were  quite  mistaken.  Al- 
though he  knew  absolutely  nothing  about  the  tariff,  he 
kept  a  cool  head,  and,  with  his  one  hundred  and  fifty 
low-tariff  followers,  made  a  brilliantly  successful  attack 
on  Randall. 

1  The  vote  stood:  Carlisle,  106;  Randall,  52;  Cox,  30. 
8  The  vote  stood  156  to  151  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  159  to 
155  in  the  House. 


THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Ordinarily  a  chairman  who  gets  in  the  way  is  promptly 
put  out  of  the  way.  Morrison  had  personal  knowledge 
of  Randall's  method,  and  at  the  opening  of  the  Forty- 
ninth  Congress  (1885)  he  urged  Carlisle  to  administer  a 
dose  of  the  same  medicine.  This  would  break  the  Penn- 
sylvanian  at  once,  since  Morrison  believed  his  success 
lay  in  his  ability  as  chairman  of  Appropriations  to  com- 
pel members  desiring  legislation  to  go  to  him.  But 
Carlisle  refused.  He  knew  that  the  Speaker  who  trans- 
ferred or  demoted  Randall  would  probably  destroy  him- 
self, and  so  the  resourceful  Morrison,  almost  brutally 
implacable  in  his  pursuit,  determined  to  take  advantage 
of  the  sentiment  favorable  to  the  creation  of  five  addi- 
tional appropriation  committees.  To  make  success  cer- 
tain he  first  fixed  the  Committee  on  Rules.  Randall 
had  long  been  on  the  committee,  and  to  resist  that 
masterful  mind  he  had  Reed,  of  Maine,  appointed  with 
himself.  Hiscock,  of  New  York,  became  the  other  mi- 
nority member.  Within  a  week  Morrison,  Reed,  and 
Hiscock  presented  a  majority  report  providing  among 
other  things  that  each  of  the  five  Committees  on  Foreign, 
Military,  Naval,  and  Indian  Affairs,  and  on  Post- 
Offices  and  Post-Roads,  should  report  a  general  appropri- 
ation bill  with  privileges  similar  to  those  allowed  Ap- 
propriations. This  would  leave  Randall  with  only  six 
bills.1 

The  veteran  member  on  Rules,  quickly  scenting  a 
combination  of  Reed  Republicans  and  Morrison  Demo- 

1  Legislative,  Executive  and  Judicial;  the  Sundry  Civil;  the  Pen- 
sion; Fortifications  and  Coast  Defenses;  the  District  of  Columbia; 
and  General  Deficiency. 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     243 

crats,  presented  a  formidable  and  an  exhaustive  minor- 
ity statement,  insisting  that  the  maintenance  of  a  sane, 
systematic  economy  was  possible  only  so  long  as  one 
committee,  no  more  interested  in  one  department  or 
branch  of  the  Government  than  another,  had  authority 
to  make  or  supervise  all  appropriations.  To  strengthen 
his  position  Randall  reprinted  the  arguments  made  in 
1865  and  1880,  declaring  that  the  enormous  increase  in 
river  and  harbor  appropriations  since  1878  justified  those 
prophetic  utterances.  This  increase  had  attracted  wide 
attention.  It  threatened  to  embarrass  the  Treasury,  and 
gave  conservative  legislators  deep  concern.  Finally,  in 
1884,  it  provoked  a  Presidential  yeio^and  many  mem- 
bers who  voted  to  override  it  fell  by  the  wayside  in  the 
succeeding  campaign.  Thus,  it  became  a  vital  illus- 
tration of  the  extravagance  that  might  occur  in  the 
five  committees  named  in  the  report  if  the  House  de- 
prived the  Committee  on  Appropriations  of  its  existing 
authority. 

In  the  debate  Morrison  and  his  supporters  claimed  that 
six  committees,  each  one  possessing  perfect  knowledge 
of  a  single  department,  could  appropriate  more  wisely 
and  economically  than  one  committee,  laden  with  the 
detail  of  six  departments,  since  for  want  of  time,  if  for 
no  other  reason,  it  could  neither  study  nor  know  their 
real  needs.  There  was  some  acrimony.  Garfield  had  ad- 
mitted in  1879  that  the  Holman  amendment  "has  so 
overloaded  the  Committee  as  to  render  it  quite  impossi- 
ble for  its  members  to  devote  sufficient  attention  to  the 
details  of  legislation  proper."  l  This  confession  of  so 
1  North  American  Review,  1879. 


244    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

distinguished  an  advocate  of  the  Committee's  sole  right 
to  appropriate  furnished  abundant  authority  to  its 
critics,  who  opened  a  battery  of  argument  upon  the 
character  of  its  investigations,  pronouncing  them  super- 
ficial, often  perfunctory,  and  never  thorough.  A  patriotic 
note  also  implied  that  too  strict  attention  to  economy, 
based  on  parsimonious  mathematical  calculations,  had 
sacrificed  the  Republic's  best  interests,  since  its  honor 
could  not  always  be  measured  in  dollars  and  cents. 
Indeed,  it  was  broadly  intimated  that  the  Committee, 
in  obedience  to  a  penurious  habit,  had  not  interpreted 
its  duty  by  a  high  regard  for  the  country.  Thus,  a  senti- 
ment pervaded  the  debate  that  rigid  economy  never  in- 
spired a  patriotic  view  of  the  public  welfare.  Con- 
versely, freedom  from  restraint  and  an  open  treasury 
led  to  national  glory. 

In  his  replies  Randall  did  not  indulge  in  repartee  or 
sarcasm.  When  such  devices  would  serve  his  purpose 
he  could  fling  them  almost  with  the  ease  of  Thaddeus 
Stevens,  his  distinguished  predecessor  on  Appropri- 
ations. But  the  temper  of  the  House  and  the  condi- 
tion of  the  debate  induced  discretion,  and  he  answered 
with  good  nature.  The  Committee  on  Appropriations, 
he  said,  was  divided  into  half  a  dozen  subcommittees, 
each  of  which  had  as  much  time  to  study  the  real  needs 
of  a  department  as  an  independent  committee  of  twelve 
or  fifteen  members,  while  the  systematic  revision  of  its 
work  absolutely  assured  to  each  department  just  treat- 
ment and  to  the  Government's  revenue  adequate  pro* 
tection.  To  remove  such  restraint  meant  entrance  "  upon 
a  path  of  extravagance  you  cannot  foresee  the  length  of 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     245 

or  the  depth  of  until  we  find  the  Treasury  of  the  country 
bankrupt." 

Among  Randall's  able  supporters  in  his  own  party, 
Hilary  A.  Herbert,  of  Alabama,  destined  to  sit  in  Pres- 
ident Cleveland's  Cabinet,  ranked  with  the  foremost. 
He  had  a  graceful  and  gracious  bearing.  He  never 
declaimed  or  ranted,  but  with  a  singularly  expressive 
combination  of  force  and  ease  he  used  no  word  that  did 
not  bear  upon  the  point  he  would  enforce.  He  thought  a 
continued  and  intimate  interest  in  the  affairs  of  one 
department  would  become  too  personal  and  tend  to  un- 
due liberality.  James  H.  Blount,  of  Georgia,  a  man  of 
gifts,  skillful  and  forceful  hi  debate,  boldly  charged  that 
a  desire  for  greater  influence  on  the  floor  and  in  the  social 
life  of  Washington,  which  came  to  those  who  held  the 
purse-strings,  inspired  much  of  the  activity  for  the  pro- 
posed change.  But  Herbert's  opposition,  though  he 
agreed  with  Blount,  was  broader  than  a  rebuke  to  its 
selfish  advocates.  He  believed  the  proposition  as  wrong 
in  principle  as  it  would  be  destructive  in  practice,  and  in 
a  single  prophetic  sentence,  pronounced  slowly  and  most 
impressively,  he  declared:  "Scatter  appropriations  and 
you  will  scatter  the  people's  money."  William  S. 
Holman,  known  as  the  "watch-dog  of  the  Treasury," 
estimated  the  cost  of  such  a  "scatter"  at  $29,000,000 
annually.  Five  years  before  (1880)  Garfield  had  fixed  it 
at  $20,000,000.  At  such  a  rate  of  increase  the  veteran 
watch-dog  saw  a  bankrupt  Treasury  as  plainly  as 
Randall  did. 

Of  the  few  Republicans  who  opposed  the  Morrison 
scheme  two  .or  three  became  illustrious.  William  Me- 


246    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Kinley,  of  Ohio,  spoke  with  great  freedom  in  opposition 
to  the  views  of  Thomas  B.  Reed.  The  latter 's  distrust  of 
the  future  President,  destined  to  grow  into  bitter  dis- 
like, had  not  yet  appeared,  for  McKinley  rarely  got  in 
his  way.  He  was  not  a  debater.  Even  when  officially  the 
floor  leader  in  the  Fifty-first  Congress  (1889),  he  left  the 
unpremeditated  rough-and-tumble  work  of  floor  man- 
agement to  Joseph  G.  Cannon.  He  preferred  preparation, 
and  when  ready,  with  the  priceless  advantage  of  a  musi- 
cal voice  aided  by  the  orator's  gift,  he  gave  importance 
to  any  subject.  His  persuasive,  well-matured  arguments, 
dexterously  interposed  to  break  the  effect  of  some  telling 
speech,  or  delivered  with  the  distinct  purpose  of  con- 
vincing the  House,  quickly  created  enthusiasm  on  one 
side  without  arousing  resentment  or  anger  on  the  other. 
This  was  the  result  in  the  pending  controversy.  He 
understood  the  animus  of  Morrison  as  well  as  the  cause 
of  the  Committee's  unpopularity,  and  his  purpose  to 
prevent  the  one  and  cure  the  other  was  not  ambiguous. 
While  admitting  that  the  Committee  exercised  tyranni- 
cal power,  he  declared  the  repeal  of  the  Holman  amend- 
ment sufficient,  since  it  and  not  the  Committee's  posses- 
sion of  the  appropriation  bills  created  the  trouble.  "I 
do  not  sympathize  with  the  sentiment  so  prevalent 
among  my  party  friends,"  he  said  slowly,  bringing  a 
silence  which  made  a  whisper  audible,  "that  it  is  a  good 
policy  to  enact  rules  which  everybody  admits  will  lead  to 
extravagance."  This  declaration  fell  with  shattering  ef- 
fect. "Oh,  no.  Nobody  admits  it!"  exclaimed  Morri- 
son. "It  is  admitted  all  over  the  House.  The  distin- 
guished leader  from  Pennsylvania  admits  it,"  retorted 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK      247 

the  speaker.  "Oh,  he  would  admit  it,  of  course,"  inter- 
rupted Reed.  To  this  McKinley  calmly  replied :  "  When 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  who  for  twenty  years 
has  occupied  a  conspicuous  place  on  this  floor,  says  the 
proposed  change  means  extravagance,  I  must  believe 
him;  and  if  this  proposition  is  to  punish  him  for  helping 
us  defeat  the  Morrison  tariff  bill  let  us  defeat  it.  If  the 
Committee  in  the  past  has  acted  as  a  check  upon  jobbery 
and  waste  and  extravagance,  we  need  it  now,  especially 
since  the  President's  message  threatens  a  deficit  of 
twenty-four  millions."  l 

Joseph  G.  Cannon  also  backed  Randall.  He  was  a 
man  of  singular  ability  and  energy,  destined  to  longer 
service  than  any  member  living  or  dead,  and  to  long 
service  as  Speaker.  His  parliamentary  training  had  been 
perfected  before  its  success  was  generally  acknowledged, 
but  long  before  the  Forty-ninth  Congress  opened  his 
faculties  had  become  so  well  drilled  that  he  could  use 
them  at  any  given  moment  to  their  fullest  stretch. 
Moreover,  his  conspicuous  work  for  twelve  years  upon 
Post-Offices  and  Appropriations  gave  him  great  pres- 
tige. It  enabled  him  to  speak  from  experience,  and  in 
accents  of  subdued,  mellifluous  benignity,  with  a  face 
that  suggested  soft,  bland  benevolence,  he  presented  ar- 
guments logically  cogent  and  expressive  of  his  own  deep 
convictions.  He  declared  that  each  of  the  five  com- 
mittees involved,  under  the  distribution  plan,  would 
magnify  its  work,  regarding  it  of  more  importance  than 
that  of  all  others  combined,  and  thus,  by  confusing 
possible  future  needs  with  present  demands,  would  sub- 
1  49th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  319-20. 


248    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

stitute  a  jingo  extravagance  for  a  patriotic  economy.  It 
meant  experiments,  the  adoption  of  fads,  the  vagaries 
of  theorists,  and  a  wide-open  Treasury  with  no  one 
authorized  to  close  the  door.  "I  would  rather  bunch 
appropriations  again  in  Ways  and  Means,"  he  declared, 
with  startling  emphasis,  "than  pass  them  around." 

This  rattling  speech,  made  by  one  whose  service  al- 
ready covered  more  years  than  any  other  member  pres- 
ent save  Randall,  Holman,  Cox,  and  William  D.  Kelley, 
brought  Reed  to  his  feet.  In  1880  he  had  declared  that 
"the  effect  of  distribution  will  be  to  add  to  the  expenses 
of  the  Government  more  than  the  Holman  rule  ever 
saved."  This  was  Randall's  argument  now.  But  Reed 
like  Morrison  had  a  grievance.  For  several  years  he  had 
chafed  under  the  Committee's  control  of  the  House  and 
had  resented  its  abandonment  of  what  to  him  seemed 
vital  to  the  Republic's  welfare,  until  he  was  ready  to 
sacrifice  consistency,  declaring  his  former  attitude  a 
"youthful  effort,"  taken  when  "I  actually  believed" 
that  the  Committee,  under  the  rules  then  adopted, 
would  transact  business  in  a  sensible  way.  "  But  for 
three  Congresses,"  he  continued,  "members  have  been 
in  irons.  It  has  left  us  without  a  fortification,  without  a 
navy,  and  without  the  transaction  of  any  business 
except  that  of  the  Committee  itself."  This  savage  at- 
tack, including  the  period  covered  by  the  chairmanship 
of  Atkins,  Hiscock,  and  Randall,  added  life  to  the  debate, 
and,  if  judged  by  applause,  expressed  the  sentiment  of 
the  House.  Like  all  sweeping  statements,  however, 
this  caustic  condemnation  was  not  wholly  just.  The 
building  of  a  modern  navy,  which  had  long  engaged 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK      249 

England  in  expensive  and  unsatisfactory  experiments, 
had  already  begun,  four  armored  cruisers  being  then 
under  construction.1  Nor  had  coast  defenses  been  over- 
looked. Although  nothing  had  happened  to  arouse  the 
country's  attention  to  their  immediate  need,  the 
Endicott  Board  had  selected  twenty-six  places  to  be 
fortified  at  an  estimated  cost  of  $122,000,000. 2  Strange 
that  one  accustomed  to  accuracy  of  statement  should 
overlook  these  facts  at  such  a  time.  It  increased  the 
surprise,  too,  that  his  argument  ignored  Cannon's  warn- 
ing; avoided  Holman's  estimated  cost  to  the  Govern- 
ment; and  failed  to  consider  Randall's  comparison  of 
river  and  harbor  appropriations  before  and  after  the 
removal  of  the  Committee's  check  upon  such  expendi- 
tures. In  fact,  aside  from  his  pungent  criticism,  he  added 
nothing  except  that  more  members  needed  the  knowl- 
edge gained  in  committee  activities,  and  that  "dis- 
tribution" would  raise  the  average  of  intelligence.  In 
illustration  of  enlightenment  thus  teaching  economy,  he 
cited  the  merchant  who  could  fix  a  price  to  meet  compe- 
tition the  better  he  knew  his  business.  At  all  events,  he 
said,  with  a  penetrating  glance  at  Herbert,  "it  is  better 
to  give  liberally  with  knowledge  than  niggardly  in 
ignorance."  3 

The  indication  that  the  tide  ran  strongly  against  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations  was  verified  by  the  vote 
of  227  to  70  in  favor  of  distribution.  Its  one-sidedness 

1  These  were  the  Atlanta,  Boston,  Chicago,  and  Dolphin,  author- 
ized in  1883  under  Hiscock. 

8  The  Endicott  Board  was  authorized  March  3, 1885,  under  Randall. 

8  49th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  210.  The  entire  debate  is  found 
on  pages  168-76,  197-210,  225-41,  278-98,  310-38. 


250    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

surprised  even  Morrison.  He  counted  upon  the  opposi- 
tion of  "Randall  and  his  forty  thieves,"  but  he  did  not 
expect  the  support  of  two  thirds  of  the  Republicans.  An 
analysis  of  the  arguments  and  the  vote  makes  it  plain 
that  a  get-even  spirit  actuated  Morrison  and  his  low- 
tariff  followers,  while  resentment  of  the  Committee's 
tyranny,  especially  under  the  construction  given  the 
Holman  amendment,  largely  governed  others. 

Legislation  shaped  in  such  temper  is  not  likely  to 
tolerate  high  principle  or  to  result  satisfactorily  even  to 
those  who  framed  it.  In  this  instance  repentance  came 
early,  for  the  system  introduced  soon  verified  Randall's 
prediction.  Under  it  each  of  the  eight  appropriation 
committees,  acting  independently,  without  restraint, 
and  without  regard  either  to  its  fair  proportion  or  to 
the  amount  of  available  revenue,  reported  whatever  it 
deemed  desirable,  apparently  indifferent  to  an  ab- 
normal increase  in  appropriations  or  to  the  creation  of 
a  treasury  deficit.  This  has  resulted  in  such  an  alarming 
growth  of  public  expenditures  that  some  modification  of 
the  present  plan  seems  essential  to  the  future  welfare 
of  the  Republic.  Indeed,  so  enormous  was  the  increase 
before  the  retirement  of  Speaker  Reed  in  1901,  that  he 
expressed  to  Joseph  G.  Cannon  deep  regret  for  his 
action.  With  equal  frankness  Joseph  D.  Sayers,  of 
Texas,  one  of  the  least  sentimental  and  the  most  un- 
affected of  men,  who  followed  the  lead  of  Morrison  and 
later  retired  to  become  governor  of  his  State,  "  indulged 
the  hope  that  the  Committee  would  be  again  charged 
with  all  the  appropriations  of  whatever  character.  Until 
this  is  done  much  cannot  be  accomplished  in  the  direc- 


COMMITTEES  AND   THEIR  WORK     251 

tion  of  economy."  l  In  corroboration  of  this  statement 
James  A.  Tawney,  of  Minnesota,  for  several  years  chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  reported  that 
during  the  Sixty-first  Congress  his  committee  cut  sev- 
enteen millions  from  the  estimates,  while  other  appro- 
priating committees  added  twenty-eight  millions,  thus 
proving  that  committees  which  appropriate  for  a  single 
department  acquire  a  special  bias  which  begets  extrav- 
agance.2 In  discussing  this  subject  John  J.  Fitzgerald, 
of  New  York,  Tawney's  successor  as  chairman  of  Ap- 
propriations, startled  the  country  with  a  comparison  of 
the  appropriations  made  from  1875  to  1885  with  those 
made  from  1901  to  1912.  This  showed  a  total  increase 
in  twelve  years  of  over  six  billion  dollars,  or  270.8  per 
cent.  Upon  the  same  basis  of  comparison  the  population 
of  the  United  States  increased  70.9  per  cent,  and  its 
wealth,  based  upon  a  "true  valuation  of  real  and  per- 
sonal property,"  80  per  cent.3  During  these  later  years 
committees  appropriated  without  restraint.  Occasion- 
ally a  party's  need  of  a  record  for  economy,  voiced 
privately  by  the  Speaker  or  publicly  by  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Appropriations,  whose  duty  it  is  to 
review  the  disposition  of  public  moneys,4  effected 
temporary  retrenchment.  Not  infrequently  other  and 
more  tortuous  methods  were  invoked.  In  1901  Senator 
Carter,  of  Montana,  defeated  a  river  and  harbor  bill, 
carrying  fifty  million  dollars,  by  continuing  debate  until 


1  63d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2460. 
a  61st  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2630. 
8  63d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2458. 
4  63d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  7034. 


252    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Congress  expired.1  But  such  savings,  made  for  use  in  a 
political  campaign  or  to  preserve  a  treasury  balance,  do 
not  belong  in  the  realm  of  legislative  economy,  since 
extravagance  is  only  deferred. 

Indeed,  so  enormous  is  the  waste  under  the  present 
method  of  making  appropriations  that  little  if  any  divi- 
sion of  sentiment  exists  as  to  the  need  of  a  change.  In 
the  Sixty-second  Congress  Swagar  Sherley,  of  Kentucky, 
with  a  display  of  pluck  indicative  of  his  independence, 
pronounced  the  system  absolutely  unscientific,  "be- 
cause we  consider  the  individual  bills  separately  and 
apart  from  their  relationship  to  the  whole  expenditure." 2 
With  equal  spirit  John  J.  Fitzgerald,  of  New  York,  a 
cold  economist,  basing  his  convictions  on  several  years' 
activity  as  chairman  of  Appropriations,  declared  that 
"while  such  an  illogical,  unscientific,  and  universally 
condemned  system  prevails,  attempts  at  reform  will  be 
futile  and  an  effective  remedy  for  the  resulting  evils  is 
impossible."  3  Other  members  of  long  experience  have 
spoken  as  decisively. 

It  is  probable  that  any  method  which  the  Government 
might  adopt  for  reducing  expenses  would  prove  less 
effective  than  if  operated  by  a  great  corporation  con- 
trolled by  a  single  head.  Even  the  boasted  English 
budget  system,  originally  formulated  if  not  fully  devel- 
oped by  William  Pitt,  needs  improvement.4  But  that 
some  plan  will  soon  be  devised  for  avoiding  excessive 

1  Soon  after  President  McKinley  appointed  him  to  the  board  of 
commissioners  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase  Exposition,  of  which  he  be- 
came chairman. 

2  62d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  5132. 

3  63d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2454. 

4  Sir  Courtenay  Ilbert,  History  of  Parliament,  p.  109. 


COMMITTEES  AND  THEIR  WORK     253 

expenditures  cannot  be  doubted.  It  is  suggested  that 
greater  scrutiny  and  further  revision  of  the  items  placed 
in  the  Book  of  Estimates,  submitted  to  Congress  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  would  be  a  long  step  in  the 
right  direction.1  Though  prepared  with  ample  details 
and  in  strict  accordance  with  law,  it  is  stuffed  with  ex- 
cessive amounts  reported  by  ambitious  bureau  chiefs 
whose  action  is  final.  In  transmitting  these  estimates 
the  Secretary  is  simply  a  messenger.  He  is  not  only 
powerless  to  revise  them,  but  without  authority  of  law 
to  notify  the  President  of  their  amount  unless  in  excess 
of  the  estimated  revenue.  It  is  likewise  suggested  that 
more  modern  and  economical  methods  be  substituted 
for  the  present  archaic  departmental  system.  Although 
big  business  has  long  demonstrated  the  large  saving 
made  by  central  purchasing  agencies,  no  government 
official,  until  President  Taft  appointed  a  commission  on 

1  Estimates  of  appropriations  for  the  next  fiscal  year  are  prepared 
by  the  head  of  each  department  and  bureau  of  the  public  service, 
who  must  specify  their  sources  and  indicate  the  conjectural  from  those 
established.  References  must  also  be  given  to  laws  or  treaties  which 
authorize  such  expenditures.  If  such  estimates  vary  materially  from 
those  formerly  proposed  or  contain  new  items,  reasons  must  be  set  forth. 
These  various  estimates  are  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, who  must  add  statements  showing  appropriations  made  in  the 
previous  year,  the  number  and  class  of  employees  with  their  pay,  and 
an  estimate  of  all  revenues  likely  to  be  received  during  the  next  fiscal 
year.  This  information,  forming  a  Book  of  Estimates  of  three  hundred 
or  more  pages,  is  printed,  indexed,  and  arranged  under  the  heads  of 
Civil  Establishment,  Military  Establishment,  Naval  Establishment, 
etc.,  and  transmitted  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House,  who  refers  it  to  the 
several  committees  making  appropriations.  If  the  estimated  appro- 
priations exceed  the  estimated  revenue,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
must  notify  the  President,  who  may,  in  his  message  to  Congress,  in- 
dicate how  such  appropriations  may  be  reduced,  or  recommend 
loans  or  new  taxes  to  cover  the  deficiency. 


254    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

economy  and  efficiency,  ever  recommended  that  one 
bureau,  representing  the  several  departments,  be  au- 
thorized to  make  repairs,  to  prevent  duplication  of  work, 
and  to  purchase  all  supplies. 

To  the  end  that  the  House  may  exercise  greater  econ- 
omy, Fitzgerald  advocates  enlarging  the  Committee  on 
Appropriations  to  include  the  chairmen  of  other  appro- 
priating committees  and  restore  its  control  of  all 
supply  bills.1  This  desire  to  return  to  the  procedure  of 
1866  is  not  surprising,  since  its  abandonment  so  speedily 
brought  the  predicted  evils;  but  it  may  well  be  doubted 
if  other  committees  will  ever  consent,  even  in  the  inter- 
est of  economy,  to  sacrifice  their  right  to  appropriate. 
Another  plan,  presented  by  Swagar  Sherley,  of  Kentucky, 
attracts  equal  attention.  It  provides  for  a  Committee  on 
Estimates  and  Expenditures,  to  consist  of  the  chairman 
and  one  or  more  members  of  Rules,  Ways  and  Means, 
and  each  of  the  eight  appropriating  committees,  who 
shall  determine  the  available  revenue  and  apportion  it 
to  each  of  the  several  appropriating  committees.  In 
ascertaining  these  amounts  it  is  proposed  that  the 
Committee,  avoiding  details  of  routine  estimates,  shall 
simply  determine  policies,  such  as  the  number  and  type 
of  battleships,  public  buildings,  and  coast  defenses,  the 
extent  of  river  and  harbor  improvements,  and  important 
changes  respecting  the  army  and  navy,  thus  ascertain- 
ing in  advance  how  much  the  House  is  willing  to  expend 
over  and  above  the  ordinary  upkeep  of  the  Government. 
After  the  House  adopts  the  report,  no  committee  may 
modify  it.2  Although  it  is  objected  that  this  Committee, 

1  63d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2459. 

2  62d  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  5132-38. 


COMMITTEES  AND   THEIR  WORK      255 

in  fixing  the  amount  of  each  supply  bill,  must  practically 
absorb  the  functions  of  the  appropriating  committees, 
it  is  said  in  reply  that  the  chairman  and  several  members 
of  each  of  these  committees,  with  full  knowledge  of  the 
estimates,  will  be  present  to  urge  the  needs  of  their  re- 
spective departments,  while  each  one  can  be  heard  as 
fully  as  now  whenever  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Estimates  and  Expenditures  is  before  the  House.  Other 
difficulties  are  presented  which  may,  perhaps,  be  re- 
moved, for  experience  often  avoids  parliamentary  ob- 
stacles that  seem  to  block  the  way.  It  is  favorable  to  its 
adoption  that  it  not  only  maintains  the  integrity  of  all 
appropriating  committees,  but  permits  members  to 
exercise  the  highly  valued  prerogative  of  increasing 
estimates,  or  making  appropriations  not  covered  by 
estimates,  so  long  as  apportioned  amounts  are  not  ex- 
ceeded or  adopted  policies  modified. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  COMMITTEE   OF  THE  WHOLE 

THE  Committee  of  the  Whole  is  not  a  committee  in  the 
sense  used  in  the  preceding  chapter.  In  early  years  the 
House  employed  it  for  the  consideration  of  such  impor- 
tant questions  as  the  tariff,  the  creation  of  executive 
departments,  the  President's  annual  messages,  proposi- 
tions relating  to  land  gifts,  and  proposed  amendments 
to  the  Constitution.  Very  often  its  deliberations  resulted 
in  an  agreement  upon  the  details  of  a  measure,  leaving 
nothing  to  a  committee  of  reference  except  the  mere 
labor  of  drafting  a  bill.  Because  of  this  practice  John 
W.  Taylor,  an  exceptionally  able  and  acute  Speaker,  de- 
cided that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  belonged  to  the 
regular  committee  system.1  But  the  more  modern  view 
holds  that  it  is  simply  the  House  itself  doing  business 
under  a  special  and  less  formal  procedure,  by  means  of 
which  the  entire  membership  is  enabled  to  participate  in 
the  consideration  of  a  bill,  unhampered  by  roll-calls  or 
the  intervention  of  motions  to  adjourn,  to  refer,  to  post- 
pone, for  the  previous  question,  and  the  like. 

To  most  members  the  procedure  is  a  favorite  one. 
The  absence  of  roll-calls  avoids  record  votes,  while  de- 
bate under  the  five-minute  rule,  so  called  from  the  time 
limit  of  the  speeches,  becomes  intensely  interesting  and 
often  critically  analytical,  the  freedom  and  informality 
1  19th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Debates,  p.  1358. 


THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE     257 

of  explaining  and  opposing  amendments  adding  a  zest 
which  is  absent  in  more  formal  discussions.  At  such 
times  the  House  is  at  its  best.  It  takes  nothing  for 
granted.  It  ridicules  an  explanation  that  does  not  ex- 
plain and  quickly  punctures  a  proposed  panacea.  "The 
key  to  the  difficulties  of  most  unsettled  questions,"  says 
Bagehot,  "is  commonly  in  their  undiscussed  parts";1 
but  under  the  five-minute  rule  as  it  now  exists  there  are 
no  undiscussed  parts.  If  ably  led  on  either  side  such  a 
debate  compels  men  to  comprehend,  and  destroys  prej- 
udice by  driving  it  from  shelter.  Many  floor  leaders  have 
shone  in  these  discussions,  but  "no  one  during  the  pres- 
ent generation,"  says  Mr.  Elaine,  "has  rivaled  Robert 
C.  Schenck's  singular  power  in  this  respect.  He  was  an 
intellectual  marvel.  The  completeness  and  clearness  of 
his  statement,  the  facts  and  arguments  which  he  could 
marshal  hi  that  brief  time,  were  a  constant  surprise  and 
delight  to  his  hearers.  He  was  able  in  every  form  of  dis- 
cussion, but  his  peculiar  gift  was  in  leading  and  control- 
ling the  Committee  of  the  Whole."  2 

This  Committee  has  a  long  history.  It  originated  in 
the  time  of  the  Stuarts,  when  taxation  arrayed  the 
Crown  against  the  Commons,  and  suspicion  made  the 
Speaker  a  tale-bearer  to  the  King.  To  avoid  the  Chair's 
espionage  the  Commons  met  in  secret,  elected  a  chair- 
man in  whom  it  had  confidence,  and  without  fear  of  the 
King  freely  exchanged  its  views  respecting  supplies. 
The  informality  of  its  procedure  survived  the  occasion 
for  secrecy,  but  to  this  day  the  House  of  Commons  keeps 

1  The  English  Constitution,  p.  207. 

8  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i,  p.  499. 


258    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

up  the  fiction  of  concealment,  the  Speaker  withdrawing 
from  the  hall  when  the  Committee  convenes,  and  the 
chairman  occupying  the  clerk's  desk.1 

From  the  outset  the  American  House  contemplated 
a  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  and  a  Committee  of 
the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union.  The  latter 
got  its  title  from  the  "Committee  of  the  Whole  House 
on  the  State  of  America,"  used  by  the  Continental 
Congress,  its  prototype  being  the  English  "Committee 
of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Nation."  When 
adopting  its  title  the  House  also  appropriated  its  func- 
tions, employing  it,  as  stated  above,  for  the  informal 
consideration  of  ^highly  important  matters  before  their 
reference  to  select  or  standing  committees.  This  was  the 
procedure  in  1789  when  Madison  raised  the  question  of 
tariff  duties.  Meanwhile  bills  favorably  reported  from 
select  or  standing  committees  were  referred  to  a  "Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House."  Originally  this  committee 
also  bore  the  title  of  the  "Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
Ways  and  Means,"  2  the  former  being  used  for  ordinary 
bills  and  the  latter  for  appropriation  and  revenue  meas- 
ures. A  similar  practice  still  obtains  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  It  has  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  Supply, 
or  the  "Committee  of  Supply,"  and  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  on  Ways  and  Means,  or,  in  common  parlance, 
the  "Committee  of  Ways  and  Means."  If  engaged  in 
considering  Indian  revenue  accounts,  such  subject  gives 
the  Committee  another  and  different  title.  In  other 
words,  the  British  Committee  of  the  Whole,  although 

1  In  early  years  this  was  the  practice  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives. 

2  14th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  pp.  298-99. 


THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE    259 

the  same  body,  is  really  four  or  more  distinct  committees, 
each  confined  exclusively  to  its  own  business,  so  that 
before  other  matters  are  taken  up  it  must  rise  and  give 
way  to  another  class  of  legislation. 

Early  in  its  history  the  American  House  sought  a 
similar  arrangement.  The  reference  of  all  reported  bills 
to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  gave  rise  to  much 
wrangling  as  to  which  should  have  precedence,  and  to 
relieve  the  trouble  the  House,  in  1817,  provided  that 
not  more  than  three  bills,  which  must  be  analogous  in 
nature,  should  be  referred  to  the  same  Committee  of  the 
Whole.  While  this  apparently  created  several  such  com- 
mittees, it  really  did  nothing  more  than  divide  reported 
bills  into  various  classes,  each  class  to  be  disposed  of  be- 
fore another  could  be  taken  up.  A  further  rule,  adopted 
in  1820,  limited  these  divisions  to  (1)  private  Senate 
bills  reported  by  a  House  committee;  (2)  private  House 
bills  reported;  (3)  public  bills  reported;  (4)  Senate  bills 
unfavorably  reported;  and  (5)  reports  unfavorable  to 
petitions.  This  arrangement  segregated  private  and 
public  bills,  and  although  the  House  refused  to  limit  the 
number  of  Committees  of  the  Whole  to  three,  as  pro- 
posed in  1822  and  again  in  1824,  the  practice  soon  estab- 
lished the  custom. 

Meanwhile,  opposition  to  exploiting  matters  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union 
which  belonged  primarily  to  standing  committees,  be- 
came more  and  more  pronounced.  The  open  procedure, 
it  was  claimed,  invited  publicity,  consumed  too  much 
time,  embarrassed  members  by  exciting  the  country,  and 
presented  no  good  reason  why  all  questions  should  not 


260    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

first  be  considered  by  standing  or  select  committees. 
The  settlement  of  this  matter  proved  decidedly  virulent. 
Madison  favored  the  widest  publicity,  and  in  the  art  of 
political  advocacy  he  had  no  equal.  Never  aspiring,  but 
ever  adequate  to  great  affairs,  he  possessed  a  power  of 
detail  and  a  didactic  precision  that  laid  bare  all  the 
weak  points  of  an  opponent.  He  thought  that  in  an  age 
of  important  business,  when  an  unusual  number  of  great 
topics  awaited  discussion,  the  House  itself  should  first 
digest  such  subjects,  unless  prevented  by  want  of  time 
or  the  necessity  of  examining  documents.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Federalists,  led  by  Theodore  Sedgwick,  favored 
legislative  initiative  only  through  standing  or  select  com- 
mittees. This  gave  members  little  skilled  in  diversified 
argument,  but  capable  of  forming  an  accurate  judg- 
ment, an  opportunity  of  expressing  opinions  without 
being  compelled  to  argue,  or  to  persuade,  or  even  to  de- 
fend their  position.  Such  an  advantage,  peculiar  to  all 
small  committees,  hastens  business,  and  as  the  affairs  of 
the  House  rapidly  multiplied,  the  custom  of  considering 
matters  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of  the 
Union,  other  than  bills  regularly  referred  to  it  from 
reporting  committees,  gradually  became  obsolete.  In 
1833  it  was  declared  "a  usage  of  the  past."  Meantime, 
the  practice  was  established  of  using  this  Committee  for 
the  consideration  of  bills  involving  a  tax  or  charge  upon 
the  people,  while  private  bills  of  a  like  character  were 
considered  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Although  the  original  rule,  adopted  in  1794,  that  every 
"motion  or  proposition  for  a  tax  or  charge  upon  the 
people  shall  first  be  considered  in  a  Committee  of  the 


THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE    261 

Whole  House,"  sufficed  for  more  than  half  a  century,  it 
did  not  always  cover  the  refinements  of  its  spirit.  Thus, 
Speaker  Cobb  held  that  a  bill  directing  a  claimant  to  be 
paid  did  not  go  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  unless  it 
actually  appropriated  the  money.  Other  Speakers  de- 
cided that  the  rule  did  not  include  "an  appropriation 
hereafter  to  be  made,"  or  "to  be  paid  out  of  an  ap- 
propriation already  made."  To  cover  these  evasive 
phrases  an  amendment  was  adopted  in  1874.  The  revi- 
sion of  1880  extended  it  to  relief  of  sureties  on  a  bond, 
and  in  1896  the  House  added  the  reference  of  claims  to 
the  Court  of  Claims.  Under  the  present  practice,  there- 
fore, "all  motions  or  propositions  involving  a  tax  or 
charge  upon  the  people,  and  all  appropriations  of  money, 
or  bills  making  appropriations  of  money  or  property,  or 
requiring  such  appropriations  to  be  made,  or  authorizing 
payments  out  of  appropriations  already  made,  or  releas- 
ing any  liability  to  the  United  States  for  money  or 
property,  or  referring  any  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims, 
must  first  be  considered  in  a  Committee  of  the  Whole."  1 
In  other  words,  a  bill  which  sets  in  motion  a  train  of  cir- 
cumstances destined  ultimately  to  involve  certain  ex- 
penditures must  run  the  gantlet  of  the  five-minute  rule, 
unless  it  comes  up  by  unanimous  consent,  by  special 
order,  or  under  suspension  of  the  rules,  the  effect  of  such 
motions  being  to  discharge  the  Committee  and  bring  the 
bill  before  the  House  itself.  Nor  does  the  rule  apply  to 
a  conference  report,  which  must  be  accepted  or  rejected 
as  an  entirety  without  amendment; 2  or  to  Senate 

1  Rule  xxm,  sec.  3. 

8  41st  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  1916.  The  early  practice  allowed  it. 
See  27th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  868. 


262    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

amendments  that  merely  change  the  amount,  or  to  bills 
in  which  an  appropriation  is  incidentally  but  not  nec- 
essarily involved,  or  is  a  mere  matter  of  speculation,  or 
is  not  to  be  borne  by  the  Government,  or  is  simply 
changed  as  to  the  mode  of  expenditure.  Speaker  Reed 
held  that  expenses  paid  from  the  House  contingent  fund 
did  not  come  within  the  rule,  although  Carlisle  and 
Crisp  decided  otherwise.  In  holding  that  expenses  for 
printing,  paid  out  of  the  contingent  fund,  did  not  go  to  the 
Committee,  Speaker  Keifer  reasoned  that  the  right  of 
the  Committee  on  Printing  to  report  at  any  time  carried 
with  it  the  right  of  present  consideration  in  the  House. 
Consideration  of  other  than  appropriation  bills  is 

/permitted  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  President's 
annual  messages  and  articles  of  impeachment  are  uni- 
formly referred  to  it.  Under  its  unrivaled  procedure  the 
general  revision  of  the  rules  in  1880  received  notable 
care.  In  general,  any  subject  the  House  desires  to  study 
with  searching  fidelity  may  be  referred  to  it.  When 
attending  an  impeachment  trial  the  House  appears  as 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

The  ceremony  of  passing  from  the  House  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  requires  but  a  moment.  A  member 
moves  that  the  House  resolve  itself  into  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  House  for  the  consideration  of  bills  on  the 
private  calendar,  without  designating  any  one;  or  the 
Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union  for  the  considera- 
tion of  revenue  or  general  appropriation  bills,  or  a  par- 
ticular bill  designated  by  its  number  and  title.  This 
motion  is  neither  debatable  nor  amendable,  and,  if  car- 
ried, the  mover  or  another  reserves  all  points  of  order  on 


THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE    263 

paragraphs  not  germane  or  within  the  reporting  com- 
mittee's jurisdiction.  The  length  of  general  debate  is 
also  usually  limited  at  this  time.  After  these  prelimi- 
naries the  Speaker  designates  a  chairman,  ordinarily 
selected  in  advance,  to  whom  he  politely  extends  the 
gavel.  Prior  to  the  Third  Congress  the  House  chose 
him  by  ballot.  In  the  House  of  Commons  he  is  nomi- 
nated by  the  Ministry,  ceases  to  be  a  partisan,  and  rules 
as  impartially  as  the  Speaker  himself.  In  the  Ameri- 
can House,  on  the  contrary,  the  chairman  remains  a 
partisan.  He  not  only  represents  his  party,  but  his 
selection  is  often  based  upon  his  known  disposition  to 
rule  in  favor  of  the  bill  under  consideration.  If  it  is  to 
be  stoutly  contested,  he  usually  knows  in  advance  the 
points  upon  which  he  must  rule,  and  his  decisions  not 
infrequently  are  prepared  before  his  appointment. 

The  chairman's  duties  begin  when  he  declares  the 
House  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  With  matters  im- 
mediately preceding  he  has  nothing  to  do.  Nor  does  he 
control  admission  to  the  floor,  or  leave  to  print,  or  mat- 
ters for  the  Record,  although  he  may  exclude  disorderly 
words.  Under  the  rules  he  maintains  order,  recognizes 
members  for  debate,  decides  points  of  order,  and  directs 
the  Committee  to  rise  whenever  members  become  un- 
duly turbulent,  since  punishment  belongs  to  the  House. 
Indeed,  at  such  times  the  Speaker  may  of  his  own  voli- 
tion resume  the  chair.  When  John  Bell,  of  Tennessee, 
one  of  the  ablest  and  most  distinguished  members,  was 
assaulted  by  a  colleague,  Speaker  Polk  rushed  to  the 
desk,  declaring  that  he  "had  taken  the  chair  without  an 
order  to  bring  the  House  into  order,"  citing  Jefferson's 


264    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Manual  as  his  authority.1  Three  years  later  Speaker 
White  reached  the  chair  while  Henry  A.  Wise,  of  Virginia, 
and  Edward  Stanly,  of  North  Carolina,  were  exchang- 
ing blows.2  On  one  occasion  when  James  S.  Sherman,  of 
New  York,  was  presiding  as  chairman  of  the  Committee, 
he,  of  his  own  motion,  sent  for  Speaker  Reed  to  resume 
the  chair  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  to  order  an  unruly 
member  who  had  defied  the  chairman  and  persisted  in 
his  disorder.  After  a  mollifying  lecture  from  the  Speaker 
on  the  necessity  for  mutual  cooperation  to  secure  or- 
derly procedure  and  maintain  the  dignity  of  the  House, 
the  skies  were  cleared  and  the  Committee  resumed  its 
session. 

The  effect  of  the  Speaker's  sudden  appearance  under 
such  conditions  is  often  humorous,  sometimes  resulting 
in  loud  laughter,  for  angry  scenes  quickly  change  to 
exhibitions  of  mock  harmony.  Since  such  disturbances 
usually  occur  in  the  heat  of  debate,  a  manly  apology, 
promptly  made,  ordinarily  satisfies.  During  the  nerv- 
ous tension  immediately  preceding  the  declaration  of 
war  with  Spain  in  1898,  an  intense  excitement,  raised 
by  the  charge  of  liar  and  the  drawing  of  a  knife,  sub- 
sided so  suddenly  on  the  appearance  of  the  mace,  borne 
by  the  sergeant-at-arms,  that  it  provoked  no  official 
notice.  Only  once  in  the  history  of  Congress  has  a 
Speaker  threatened  to  call  the  Capitol  police.  This 
record  is  the  more  remarkable,  perhaps,  if  one  may  credit 
the  statement  of  James  H.  Hammond,  of  South  Carolina, 
respecting  the  Speakership  contest  in  1859.  "I  believe," 
he  wrote,  "that  every  man  is  armed  with  a  revolver  — 

1  25th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  422. 

2  27th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  445. 


THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE    265 

some  with  two  and  a  bowie  knife."  Before  the  Civil 
War  it  was  not  unusual  for  members  to  bear  concealed 
weapons.  Speaking  of  his  experiences  in  the  fifties, 
former  Speaker  Grow  tells  of  a  revolver  slipping  from  a 
member's  hip  pocket  and  falling  noisily  to  the  floor  in 
front  of  the  Speaker's  desk.  In  answer  to  a  request  from 
the  Chair,  its  owner  explained  that  he  had  carried  it  the 
night  before  as  a  protection  against  vicious  dogs  and 
forgot  to  remove  it  from  his  pocket.  This  explanation 
raised  a  roar  of  derisive  laughter,  but  the  matter  re- 
ceived no  further  notice.  "It  is  doubtful,"  added  Grow, 
"if  a  revolver  has  been  carried  in  the  House  for  forty 
years."  * 

Although  one  hundred  constitutes  a  quorum  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  it  may  proceed  with  a  less 
number  until  the  chairman  is  notified  of  the  fact.  He 
then  directs  a  roll-call,  and  if  a  quorum  fails  to  respond, 
the  Speaker  resumes  the  chair  while  the  chairman  re- 
ports the  absentees  for  entry  in  the  Journal.  When  a 
quorum  finally  appears,  the  Committee  resumes  its 
session.  As  it  cannot  adjourn  or  transact  business  other 
than  that  before  it,  it  frequently  rises  that  the  House 
may  receive  a  message  from  the  Senate  or  the  President. 
A  motion  to  rise  is  not  debatable.  Nor  is  it  in  order  if  a 
member  has  the  floor  in  debate,  or  pending  a  demand 
for  tellers,  or  the  announcement  of  a  vote;  but  it  has 
precedence  of  a  motion  to  amend.  The  chairman  of  his 
own  volition  may  direct  the  Committee  to  rise  at  an 
hour  previously  fixed  by  the  House  for  an  adjournment, 
or  to  rise  informally  to  receive  a  message;  but  a  message 
1  Conversation  with  the  author. 


266    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

from  the  President,  received  after  the  Committee  rises, 
may  not  then  be  laid  before  the  House  without  unani- 
mous consent. 

When  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  members 
participating  in  debate  are  confined  strictly  to  the  topic 
under  consideration,  but  during  general  debate  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union 
any  subject,  however  irrelevant,  may  be  discussed.  Two 
members  of  opposing  views  apportion  the  time,  giving 
preference  to  members  of  the  reporting  committee. 
Promptly  at  the  close  of  general  debate,  which  must  be 
fixed  by  vote  in  the  House,  the  clerk  begins  reading  the 
bill.1  At  the  end  of  any  paragraph  a  member  who  gets 
the  floor  may  raise  a  point  of  order,  move  to  strike  out 
the  enacting  clause,  or  offer  an  amendment.  A  motion 
to  strike  out  precedes  one  to  amend,  while  the  right  to 
explain  or  oppose  precedes  a  motion  to  amend  an  amend- 
ment. The  proponent  of  an  amendment  is  allowed  five 
minutes  to  explain  and  an  opponent  five  minutes  to  reply. 
This  ends  debate  on  that  amendment;  but  similar  privi- 
leges are  permitted  on  other  amendments,  on  amend- 
ments to  an  amendment,  and  on  the  pro-forma  amend- 
ment to  "strike  out  the  last  word."  Points  of  order  are 
decided  by  the  chairman,  while  debate  on  an  appeal  is 
limited  as  in  the  House.  One  fifth  of  a  quorum  is  re- 
quired to  order  tellers,  but  yeas  and  nays  are  not  taken 
or  pau*s  announced. 

Although  a  disposition  rarely  manifests  itself  to  close 
the  five-minute  debate  immediately,  the  Committee 

1  Revenue  and  appropriation  bills  are  divided  into  paragraphs; 
other  bills  into  sections. 


THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE    267 

may,  after  one  speech  of  five  minutes,  cut  off  all  debate 
on  the  pending  section;  but  this  does  not  preclude  offer- 
ing and  disposing  of  amendments  without  debate.  In- 
deed, no  way  exists  to  take  a  bill  from  the  Committee 
until  read  through  by  paragraphs  or  sections  except  by 
a  special  order,  or  by  striking  out  the  enacting  clause. 
The  latter  course,  should  the  House  non-concur,  recom- 
mits the  bill  to  the  Committee  as  unfinished  business. 

It  took  nearly  a  century  to  perfect  this  felicitous 
system,  so  responsive  to  the  majority  and  so  tolerant  to 
the  minority.  Originally  speeches  were  unlimited,  and 
so  long  as  this  vicious  handicap  continued  the  procedure 
profited  little  by  other  benefits.  Finally,  in  1841,  the 
Committee  on  Rules,  taking  advantage  of  its  privilege 
to  report  "at  all  times,"  submitted  a  rule  that  whenever 
a  bill  had  been  read  for  amendments  without  debate,  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  might  report  to  the  House.1 
During  the  struggle  the  House  not  only  adopted  the 
rule,  but  it  limited  all  speeches  to  one  hour  both  in  the 
House  and  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  In  reviewing 
this  historic  conflict  one  wonders  that  many  very  sen- 
sible persons,  including  John  Quincy  Adams,  should 
have  opposed  such  a  needed  reform  as  the  limitation  of 
speeches.  No  doubt  the  manner  of  bringing  it  about 
goaded  the  minority  into  violence,  but  it  soon  proved  a 
satisfactory  compromise.  Not  as  much  could  be  said  of 
the  exclusion  of  debate  on  amendments.  In  fact,  the 
rule  amounted  to  burlesque,  since  it  needs  discussion  to 
amend  wisely,  and  to  obviate  the  defect  privilege  was 
granted  in  1847  to  explain  each  amendment  in  one 
1  27th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  155. 


268    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

speech  of  five  minutes.  Contrary  to  expectation,  how- 
ever, this  increased  obstruction  by  inviting  scores  of 
amendments  which  were  withdrawn  as  soon  as  read 
and  explained.  An  additional  provision,  adopted  in 
1850,  permitted  one  speech  in  reply,  but  denied  the 
right  to  withdraw  amendments  except  by  unanimous 
consent.  Although  this  proved  a  long  step  toward  per- 
fecting the  five-minute  rule,  anti-slavery  advocates 
demonstrated  that  it  in  no  wise  lessened  obstruc- 
tion. 

This  became  alarmingly  evident  pending  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  in  1854.  One  irrev- 
erent abolitionist  declared  that  the  heavens  and  earth 
may  pass  away,  but  the  Missouri  Compromise  shall  not 
pass  away,  and  to  prevent  such  an  inexcusable  betrayal 
of  a  sacred  agreement  the  Free-Soilers  consumed  several 
months  with  an  endless  number  of  amendments.  Finally, 
Alexander  H.  Stephens  moved  to  strike  out  the  enact  ing 
clause,  citing  Rule  119  as  his  authority.  In  appearance 
Stephens  resembled  John  Randolph,  his  attenuated  body 
seeming  scarcely  able  to  support  his  massive  head,  while 
his  amiable  disposition  and  gentle  manners  exaggerated 
his  physical  frailty.  But  his  vigorous  mind  and  clear 
voice,  as  he  explained  his  historic  motion,  quickly  dis- 
pelled the  idea  of  weakness.  Without  displaying  the 
slightest  feeling  he  evinced  a  subtle  charm  of  manner 
that  explained  his  power  as  a  popular  speaker.  Should 
the  enacting  clause  be  stricken  out  and  the  House  refuse 
to  concur,  he  said,  the  bill,  which  will  then  be  in  the 
House,  can  be  voted  upon  directly.  "  I  make  this  motion 
now,"  he  added,  "because  the  measure  has  been  under 


THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE    269 

consideration  for  five  months  and  in  this  way  we  shall 
get  rid  of  these  endless  amendments."  l 

Israel  Washburn,  of  Maine,  quickly  took  the  floor. 
He  was  a  new  member,  just  entering  his  second  term, 
and  like  Stephens  belonged  to  the  milder  men  of  the 
House.  But  his  knowledge  of  the  rules  and  his  readiness 
to  apply  them  had  already  attracted  attention,  and  he 
now  made  the  point  of  order  that  under  the  unbroken 
practice  for  many  years  such  a  motion  must  be  made 
in  the  House.  To  this  the  chairman  retorted  that  the 
practice  had  been  in  violation  of  the  rule.  Thereupon 
Washburn  denounced  the  proceeding  as  "the  most 
flagrant  attempt  ever  made  to  trample  on  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  a  minority  of  the  representatives  and  of 
a  majority  of  the  people."  2 

Stephens  understood  the  practice  as  Washburn  did. 
The  motion  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause  had  long 
been  recognized,  and  Rule  119,  adopted  in  1822,  gave  it 
preference  over  one  to  amend;  but  it  had  distinctly  been 
held  in  1842  that  this  motion  could  not  be  made  in  Com- 
mittee before  the  bill  was  read  through  for  amendments, 
and  the  practice  had  conformed  to  that  decision.3 
Stephens  maintained,  however,  that  Rule  119  did  not 
belong  among  the  rules  relating  to  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  but  was  in  fact  a  part  of  the  rule  prescribing 
the  precedence  of  motions  admissible  when  a  question 
was  under  debate,  whether  in  the  House  or  in  Committee, 
and  that  therefore  it  was  not  subject  to  the  limitations 
imposed  by  the  ruling  of  1842. 

1  33d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  1241.  !  Ibid. 

3  27th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  244-45. 


270    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Years  afterward  Speaker  Elaine  pronounced  this  ex- 
planation "a  parliamentary  fraud";  adding,  "and  I 
measure  my  words  when  so  describing  it."  *  It  was  cer- 
tainly a  fictitious  device,  and  by  means  of  it  a  ruling  of 
the  Chair,  sustained  on  appeal  by  a  majority  vote,  ac- 
complished what  would  otherwise  have  required  a  sus- 
pension of  the  rules  by  a  two  thirds  vote.  But  like  all 
sudden  and  radical  changes  in  the  parliamentary  pro- 
cedure of  the  House,  it  was  the  product  of  party  neces- 
sity. It  belongs  in  the  same  category  with  the  action  of 
the  Whigs  in  1841 ;  with  the  abolition  of  dilatory  motions 
in  1882;  with  the  adoption  of  a  special  order  by  a  major- 
ity vote  in  1883;  and  with  the  counting  of  a  quorum  in 
1890;  and  although  it  was  a  counterfeit  contrivance, 
entirely  lacking  the  constitutional  basis  and  broad  ap- 
plication of  the  extraordinary  innovations  established 
by  Reed,  the  curious  eye  will  search  through  parlia- 
mentary history  in  vain  for  anything  more  adroit  and 
unexpected.  A  bomb  dropped  from  the  clouds  into  the 
midst  of  the  Free-Soilers  could  not  have  created  greater 
consternation,  and  in  their  unsuccessful  efforts  to  escape 
the  destructive  blow  they  exhausted  all  the  devices 
known  to  obstructionists. 

Although  the  means  adopted  to  repeal  the  Missouri 
Compromise  were  bitterly  denounced  at  the  time  as 
subversive  of  the  rights  of  the  minority,  the  precedent 
became  an  accepted  practice  of  the  House  for  several 
years.  It  proved  too  useful  to  be  willingly  given  up.  If 
it  helped  one  party  in  1854,  Banks  used  it  to  aid  his  side 
in  1857;  but  the  cunning  play  did  not  belong  in  a  parlia- 
1  43d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  899. 


THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  WHOLE    271 

mentary  code,  and  in  the  revision  of  1860  Washburn 
destroyed  its  sting  by  providing  that  whenever  the 
House  refused  to  concur  in  a  report  striking  out  the 
enacting  clause  the  bill  should  automatically  return  to 
the  Committee.  As  this  deprived  the  House  of  the  right 
to  refer  it  for  reformation  to  another  committee,  an 
amendment  adopted  in  1870  restored  the  privilege,  with 
the  reservation  that  whenever  the  bill  "is  again  reported 
to  the  House  it  shall  be  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  without  debate."  l  Washburn  also  destroyed  the 
evil  of  unlimited  discussion  of  amendments  by  clothing 
the  Committee  with  power,  after  the  five-minute  rule 
begins,  to  close  debate  upon  any  section,  further  amend- 
ments being  decided  without  debate.  Thus  was  per- 
fected the  present  admirable  procedure  under  the  five- 
minute  rule. 

A  bill  being  read  through  for  amendments  the  Com- 
mittee's work  concludes  with  a  motion  to  rise  and  report 
with  recommendation  that  the  measure  be  passed,  or 
referred,  or  laid  on  the  table,  or  postponed.  There- 
upon the  chairman,  returning  the  gavel  to  the  Speaker, 
resumes  his  place  on  the  floor  and  reports  in  form  as 
follows:  "Mr.  Speaker,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  or  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union, 
having  had  under  consideration  the  bill  [giving  number 
and  title]  has  directed  me  to  report  the  same  with/ 
amendments  with  the  recommendation  that  the  amend- 
ments be  agreed  to  and  that  the  bill  do  pass,"  or  other- 
wise as  the  recommendation  directs.  This  brief  report 
includes  all  the  information  the  House  can  possess.  If 
1  Rule  xxiu,  sees.  6  and  7. 


THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

another  than  the  chairman  seeks  to  add  a  further  state- 
ment, even  though  he  claims  the  floor  on  a  question  of 
personal  privilege,  the  Speaker  declines  to  hear  him, 
since  no  such  matter  is  before  the  House.1  This  ironclad 
rule  occasionally  becomes  a  cover  to  wrongdoing,2  but 
the  House,  if  so  disposed,  can  correct  any  high-handed 
action  by  non-concurring  in  the  report. 

1  56th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4730. 

8  29th  Cong.,  1st  Sess..  Globe,  August  10. 1846. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  MAKING   OF  A   LAW 

WHEN  a  member  introduces  a  bill  he  endorses  it  with 
his  name  and  the  committee  to  which  in  his  opinion  it 
belongs,  and  delivers  it  to  the  clerk,  who  enters  it  by 
number  and  title  in  the  Journal  and  the  Record.  The 
Speaker  or  his  secretary  then  indicates  the  committee 
to  which  it  goes.  An  error  in  the  reference  of  a  private 
bill  must  be  corrected,  otherwise  it  cannot  be  reported; 
but  a  committee  to  which  a  public  measure  is  impro- 
perly referred  acquires  jurisdiction  if  the  mistake  remain 
unrectified.  If  a  bill  falls  within  the  jurisdiction  of  two 
committees,  it  may  be  sent  to  either;  if  portions  belong 
to  several  committees,  it  may  be  divided  among  them,  or 
the  entire  bill  referred  by  the  House  to  any  committee. 
But  if  a  bill  be  for  the  payment  or  adjudication  of  a 
private  claim,  it  requires  unanimous  consent  to  refer  it 
elsewhere  than  to  the  committee  of  original  jurisdiction. 
Errors  of  reference  not  involving  contested  jurisdiction 
are  usually  adjusted  without  the  attention  of  the  House. 

After  reference  a  bill  is  sent  to  the  printer,  who  makes 
six  hundred  and  twenty  five  copies  of  a  public  measure 
and  two  hundred  and  sixty  copies  of  a  private  bill. 
These  are  sent  to  the  committee  of  reference  and  to  the 
House  and  Senate  document  rooms.  If  the  demand 
warrants  it  the  secretary  of  the  Senate  and  clerk  of  the 
House  may  print  one  thousand  additional  copies.  If 


274    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

more  are  needed  the  House  must  order  them  by  reso- 
lution. 

A  committee  cannot  change  the  subject  or  the  title  of 
a  bill,  but  it  may  draft  a  new  measure  based  upon  bills 
relating  to  the  same  subject,  or  frame  a  bill  of  its  own. 
Such  bills  take  a  new  number  and  often  bear  the  chair- 
man's name,  as  the  "McKinley  Bill,"  the  "Dingley 
Bill,"  or  the  "Underwood  Bill."  When  a  committee  re- 
ports a  bill  the  chairman  certifies  that  a  majority  favored 
it,  a  quorum  being  present,  after  which  it  is  filed  with 
the  clerk,  who  enters  it  by  title,  number,  and  date  on 
the  Private  Calendar  if  it  be  a  private  bill,  on  the  House 
Calendar  if  a  public  bill  without  an  appropriation,  or  on 
the  Union  Calendar  if  a  public  bill  carrying  an  appro- 
priation. A  report,  accompanied  with  the  views  of  the 
minority,  is  also  filed.  Both  bill  and  report  then  go  to 
the  printer.  A  general  appropriation  or  other  privileged 
bill,  although  reported  from  the  floor,  is  also  filed  with 
the  clerk,  who  lists  it  on  the  proper  calendar  and  sends 
it  with  the  report  to  the  printer. 

A  bill,  previous  to  its  passage,  must  be  read  three 
tunes,  the  first  and  second  readings  (the  first  by  title 
and  the  second  in  full)  occurring  when  it  is  taken  up  in 
the  House.  The  question,  "Will  the  House  now  con- 
sider it?"  may  then  be  demanded  by  any  member. 
This  question  of  consideration,  as  elsewhere  stated,  is 
the  means  by  which  the  House  protects  itself  from  busi- 
ness it  does  not  at  the  time  wish  to  consider.  It  cannot 
be  debated  or  reconsidered,  and  after  being  moved 
neither  the  previous  question  nor  a  point  of  order  can 
prevent  its  being  voted  upon.  But  it  cannot  be  raised 


THE  MAKING  OF  A  LAW  275 

after  debate  has  begun,  or  after  the  previous  question  is 
ordered,  or  against  a  bill  to  which  the  President  has  filed 
objections,  or  which  goes  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
or  is  taken  up  by  unanimous  consent,  under  a  suspen- 
sion of  the  rules,  or  by  a  special  order  which  provides  for 
immediate  consideration.  If  the  question  be  negatived, 
the  bill  remains  as  unacted  upon.  If  decided  in  the  af- 
firmative, the  bill  is  open  for  debate,  amendment,  and 
a  third  reading. 

If  a  bill  involves  a  tax  or  charge  upon  the  people  it 
goes  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House,  or  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union.1 
If  it  carries  no  appropriation  it  is  usually  taken  up  by 
unanimous  consent,  under  suspension  of  the  rules,  by 
special  order,  by  privilege,  on  fixed  days  of  the  week,  or 
on  call  of  committees;  or  it  may  be  considered  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole.  In  each  case  the  procedure  varies. 
Unanimous  consent  avoids  the  question  of  considera- 
tion, and  as  the  purpose  of  the  bill  is  ordinarily  clearly 
outlined  before  consent  is  given,  it  soon  reaches  a  vote. 
Should  a  disposition  be  manifested  to  amend  or  unduly 
debate  it,  a  demand  for  the  previous  question  would 
quickly  pass  or  reject  it. 

A  motion  "to  suspend  the  rules  and  pass  the  bill," 
when  seconded  by  a  majority  of  a  quorum,  bars  the 
question  of  consideration,  limits  debate  to  twenty  min- 
utes on  a  side,  excludes  amendments  other  than  those 
authorized  by  the  reporting  committee,  and  avoids  in- 
tervening motions.  At  the  close  of  the  forty  minutes' 
debate  a  vote  is  taken,  and  if  two  thirds  of  a  quorum 
1  See  chap,  xm,  p.  260. 


276    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

vote  in  the  affirmative  the  bill  is  passed.  The  passage 
of  a  bill  convoyed  by  a  special  order  is  not  less  direct, 
since  the  Committee  on  Rules  usually  specifies  the 
length  of  general  debate,  the  manner  of  considering 
amendments,  the  time  for  ordering  the  previous  ques- 
tion, and  the  hour  for  taking  the  final  vote.  In  other 
words,  the  adoption  of  a  special  order  avoids  all  moves 
for  compassing  the  delay  of  a  bill.  Indeed,  its  con- 
sideration becomes  little  more  than  a  stage  play,  since 
the  debate,  however  strenuous  and  noisy  it  may  be, 
cannot  modify  its  course. 

A  privileged  bill,  as  well  as  one  taken  up  on  fixed  days 
of  the  week  or  on  call  of  committees,  if  not  sent  to  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  is  open  to  the  question  of  con- 
sideration, and,  "when  under  debate,"  to  motions  to 
adjourn  and  to  lay  on  the  table.  Although  the  motion 
to  adjourn  has  the  highest  precedence  and  nothing  may 
intervene  to  prevent  a  vote,  it  cannot  interrupt  a  mem- 
ber who  has  the  floor,  or  stop  a  vote,  or  be  used  for 
I  dilatory  purposes^A  more  drastic  motion  is  to  lay  on 
J^S- 1  the  table.  JUnder  tne  old  practice  it  put  the  bill  aside 
!  »  temporarily,  but  since  1841  the  House  has  used  it  to 
dispose  finally  of  a  bill  without  debate.  Moreover,  the 
motion,  if  it  prevails,  carries  all  amendments  to  the 
table  with  it;  or,  if  moved  on  an  amendment,  it  carries 
the  bill  with  it.  If  Senate  amendments  to  a  House  bill 
be  laid  on  the  table  the  bill  also  goes  to  the  table.  "  This 
is  upon  the  very  sensible  ground,"  said  Speaker  Reed, 
"that  you  cannot  go  on  with  an  amendment  when  the 
main  subject  is  no  longer  before  the  House,  and  cannot 
go  on  with  the  main  question  when  there  exist  amend- 


THE  MAKING  OF  A  LAW  277 

ments  liable  to  be  called  up  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
House."  l  Speaker  Randall  held  that  a  motion  to  lay  a 
particular  section  on  the  table,  if  decided  affirmatively, 
carried  the  whole  bill  to  the  table,  and  Speaker  Boyd, 
as  early  as  1853,  held  that  it  carried  to  the  table  all 
pending  motions  connected  with  it.  Speaker  Reed 
further  extended  its  power  by  holding  that  the  motion 
might  be  made  even  though  a  member  entitled  to  prior 
recognition  held  the  floor  for  debate.2  Thus,  it  became 
possible  for  one  who  inadvertently  failed  to  raise  the 
question  of  consideration  to  repair  the  mistake  by  mov- 
ing to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table. 

If  the  motions  to  adjourn  and  to  lay  on  the  table  are 
negatived,  the  previous  question,  if  ordered,  carries  the 
bill  through  the  amendment  stage  until  engrossed  and 
read  a  third  time.  The  previous  question  as  used  in  the 
House  is  the  only  motion  for  closing  debate.  Under  the 
present  rule  it  may  be  asked  and  ordered  upon  a  single 
motion,  a  series  of  motions,  or  an  amendment  or  amend- 
ments, or  it  may  be  made  to  embrace  all  authorized 
motions  or  amendments  and  include  the  bill  to  its  pas- 
sage.3 After  it  is  ordered,  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table, 
to  postpone,  or  to  refer  cannot  be  applied  to  it  or  to  the 
main  question.  In  other  words,  it  brings  the  House  to 
a  direct  vote  upon  the  immediate  question,  unless  no 
debate  has  occurred  on  it,  in  which  case  forty  minutes 
are  allowed.  But  this  applies  only  to  the  main  question 
and  not  to  incidental  motions.  Nor  does  it  matter  how 
slight  the  prior  debate  may  have  been.  Even  the  utter- 

1  Parliamentary  Rules,  p.  83. 

»  55th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  744.  3  Rule  xvn,  sec.  1. 


278    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ance  of  an  explanatory  sentence  is  held  to  be  "debate."  l 
Thus,  in  April,  1898,  when  the  celebrated  House  joint 
resolution  authorizing  and  directing  President  McKinley 
to  intervene  and  stop  the  war  in  Cuba  came  from  the 
.  Senate  with  a  substitute  as  an  amendment,  Speaker 
Reed  ruled  that  after  the  previous  question  was  ordered, 
although  the  object  of  the  forty-minute  rule  was  solely 
to  prevent  a  proposition  being  rushed  through  without 
debate,  the  pending  substitute  could  not  be  discussed, 
since  its  subject-matter  had  already  received  such  de- 
bate as  the  House  saw  fit  to  give  it  before  the  resolution 
went  to  the  Senate.2 

Until  the  previous  question  is  ordered,  however,  de- 
bate continues,  and  the  intervening  motions  to  postpone 
to  a  day  certain,  to  refer,  to  amend,  and  to  postpone 
indefinitely,  are  allowed  in  the  order  of  their  recital.  The 
purpose  of  these  motions  is  usually  to  delay  or  defeat 
the  bill.  The  motion  to  postpone  to  a  day  certain,  for 
illustration,  gives  opportunity,  without  permission  to 
debate  the  merits  of  the  main  question,  to  plead  for  time 
to  study  the  measure.  In  like  manner  the  motion  to 
refer  affords  a  further  chance  to  sidetrack  it  by  insisting 
that  more  time  than  the  House  can  then  give  is  needed 
to  investigate  it.  If  the  motion  be  to  refer  with  instruc- 
tions, the  scope  of  the  debate  is  extended  to  the  merits  of 
the  bill.  But  the  most  insidious  motion  is  to  postpone 
indefinitely,  because  it  avoids  a  direct  vote  on  the  bill, 
opens  the  whole  question  to  debate,  and,  if  carried,  de- 
feats the  measure. 

1  54th  Cong.,  1st  Sess..  Record,  p.  5649. 
8  55th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4062. 


THE  MAKING  OF  A  LAW  279 

In  actual  practice,  however,  these  intervening  motions 
are  rarely  used,  for  when  a  bill  reaches  the  amendment 
stage  the  previous  question  is  usually  ordered.  In  that 
event  the  Speaker  states  the  question  to  be,  "Shall  the 
bill  be  engrossed  and  read  a  third  time?"  If  decided  in 
the  affirmative,  the  bill  is  again  read  by  title,  unless  its 
reading  in  full  is  demanded.  At  this  stage  the  Chair 
recognizes  an  opponent  of  the  measure  for  a  motion  to 
recommit.  Unless  precluded  by  the  previous  question, 
this  motion  may  be  amended,  as  by  adding  "with  in- 
structions," and  if  recommitted  and  subsequently  re- 
ported again,  another  motion  to  recommit  is  allowed. 
If  the  motion  be  "to  recommit  with  instructions  that 
the  committee  report  forthwith,"  the  Chair  reports  at 
once  without  awaiting  action  by  the  committee  and  the 
bill  is  again  before  the  House  for  its  immediate  con- 
sideration. 

In  presenting  the  reason  for  this  peculiar  procedure, 
which  originally  excited  much  adverse  criticism,  Speaker 
Reed  said:  "The  rules  provide  that  after  a  bill  is  ordered 
to  a  third  reading  —  that  is,  after  it  passes  the  amend- 
ment stage  —  the  House  shall  look  at  it  as  amended.  It 
might  happen  that  the  majority  does  not  favor  two 
apparently  conflicting  amendments,  and  to  give  oppor- 
tunity to  remedy  it  this  motion  'to  recommit  with  in- 
structions that  the  committee  report  forthwith*  is  per- 
mitted. It  takes  the  form  of  a  peremptory  instruction 
to  the  committee,  and  it  seems  proper  that  the  chair- 
man of  the  committee  should  promptly  obey  the  orders 
of  the  House.  It  is  true  the  chairman  is  only  the  mouth- 
piece of  the  committee,  but  the  committee  itself  is  the 


280    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

agent  of  the  House  and  the  House  has  a  perfect  right  to 
order  the  committee  to  do  its  will  in  whatever  fashion 
it  sees  fit.  ...  When  it  orders  the  committee  to  report 
'forthwith/  that  expression  carries  with  it  the  right  of 
immediate  consideration,  thus  enabling  the  House  to 
finish  the  business  upon  which  it  has  entered.  .  .  .  Nor 
can  the  substitute,  if  it  belonged  to  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  be  sent  there  for  consideration,  for  the  whole 
subject  has  been  considered  by  that  Committee  and  the 
House  has  disagreed  with  its  report  so  pointedly  that  it 
has  directed  the  committee  originally  in  charge  of  the 
matter  to  report  to  the  House  *  forth  with'  another  bill."1 
..  If  the  motion  to  recommit  be  defeated,  the  bill  is 
passed  viva  voce,  or  by  the  yeas  and  nays,  if  demanded 
by  one  fifth  of  a  quorum.  The  title  of  the  bill,  which 
becomes  important  in  case  of  doubt  or  ambiguity,  is 
then  amended,  if  necessary,  without  debate.  But  the 
bill  is  not  "out  of  the  woods"  until  a  motion  to  recon- 
sider is  disposed  of.  Under  the  rule  this  motion  may  be 
made  at  any  time  on  the  same  or  succeeding  day,  after 
which  it  cannot  be  withdrawn  except  by  consent  of  the 
House,  but  may  be  called  up  by  any  member, "provided, 
that  such  motion,  if  made  during  the  last  six  days  of  a 
session,  shall  be  disposed  of  when  made." 2  While  this 
motion  is  pending,  therefore,  a  bill  is  not  considered 
passed.  Nor  will  the  Speaker  knowingly  sign  it,  for  if 
the  bill  has  gone  to  the  Senate  or  reached  the  President 
the  motion  may  still  be  entertained.  It  has  precedence 
of  all  other  questions  except  a  motion  to  adjourn  and 
the  consideration  of  a  conference  report,  and  may  even 
1  51st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  3505.  2  Rule  xvm,  sec.  1. 


THE  MAKING  OF  A  LAW  281 

be  made  after  the  previous  question  has  been  ordered 
on  a  bill  to  its  passage.  When  once  entered  it  remains 
pending  until  the  end  of  a  Congress  unless  sooner  dis- 
posed of,  and  whenever  agreed  to  it  reopens  the  entire 
proposition. 

This  motion,  apparently  so  disturbing  to  parliamen- 
tary action,  has  had  a  curious  and  interesting  history. 
Originally  it  was  unlimited.  It  could  be  moved  at  any 
time  regardless  of  the  whereabouts  of  the  bill,  which 
might  in  the  mean  time  have  reached  the  Senate  or  the 
President.  But  in  1811  the  House  restricted  the  motion 
to  "the  same  or  succeeding  day,"  and  so  it  remained 
until  1828,  when  Speaker  Stevenson,  in  one  of  his 
famous  autocratic  rulings,  restricted  it  to  the  hour  on 
those  two  days  devoted  to  the  presentation  of  motions. 
The  House  quickly  resented  this  limitation,  and  at  the 
instance  of  Philip  P.  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  whom  Presi- 
dent Jackson  subsequently  appointed  Associate  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  it  declared  that  on  either  day  the 
motion  "shall  take  precedence  of  all  other  questions 
except  a  motion  to  adjourn."  l  A  little  later  Stevenson 
crippled  it  with  another  shot,  holding  that  a  member 
could  withdraw  his  motion  even  though  the  time  had 
elapsed  for  another  to  make  it.  This  ruling  continued 
until  1848,  when  the  House  adopted  the  present  provision 
preventing  its  withdrawal  without  the  consent  of  the 
House.  Meantime,  however,  members  of  the  Twenty- 
third  Congress  (1839)  had  stumbled  on  a  way  to  avoid 
its  sting.  A  sharp  contest  over  a  memorial  relating  to 
the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  had 
1  20th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  1041. 


282    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ended  in  an  order  directing  the  clerk  to  print  it.  Such 
respect  had  rarely  if  ever  been  shown  petitions  of  this 
character,  and  Henry  A.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  moved  to 
reconsider  the  resolution,  "which  gave  rise,"  says 
Adams,  "to  a  snarling  debate."  l  After  this  a  motion 
followed  to  lay  the  motion  to  reconsider  on  the  table. 
Just  what  this  would  accomplish  nobody  seemed  to  know, 
but  Speaker  Bell  ventured  the  opinion  that  the  clerk 
could  not  print  the  memorial,  as  the  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table,  if  carried,  might  subsequently  be  taken  from 
the  table,  when  the  question  would  recur  on  the  motion 
to  reconsider.  Of  course  such  a  disposition  of  the  matter 
satisfied  the  distinguished  Virginian,  and  the  motion  to 
reconsider  went  to  the  table.  At  a  later  day,  when  a 
member  sought  to  take  the  motion  from  the  table,  he 
found  his  unprivileged  effort  thwarted  by  a  single  ob- 
jection which  could  be  overcome  only  by  a  suspension 
of  the  rules.  This  meant  that  tabling  a  motion  to  re- 
consider virtually  killed  it.  Thus  was  established  the 
practice,  whenever  a  motion  is  carried  or  lost,  of  imme- 
diately moving  to  reconsider  and  to  lay  that  motion  on 
the  table.2  The  present  custom  of  the  same  member 
making  the  double  motion  came  a  little  later.3 

A  bill  being  passed  and  the  question  of  its  reconsidera- 
tion being  disposed  of,  the  clerk  certifies  the  fact  at  the 
foot  of  it  and  delivers  it  to  the  Committee  on  Enrolled 
Bills,  where  it  is  engrossed;  that  is,  printed  on  paper. 
The  clerk  then  sends  it  by  a  messenger  to  the  Senate, 

1  Diary,  vol.  ix,  p.  206. 

*  27th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  11;  Journal,  p.  406. 

»  32d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  1560. 


THE  MAKING  OF  A  LAW  283 

who,  at  a  proper  moment,  is  introduced  by  the  sergeant- 
at-arms  with  the  words,  "Mr.  President,  a  message  from 
the  House  of  Representatives."  Thereupon  the  mes- 
senger bows  and  addresses  the  presiding  officer  as  "Mr. 
President,"  who,  in  turn,  addresses  the  messenger  as 
"Mr.  Clerk."  The  messenger,  in  a  distinct  voice  that 
all  may  hear,  responds:  "I  am  directed  by  the  House  of 
Representatives  to  inform  the  Senate  that  the  House 
has  passed  the  following  bill  [indicating  it  by  number 
and  title],  in  which  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate  is 
requested."  The  bill  is  handed  to  the  sergeant-at-arms 
and  the  messenger  retires.  If  the  Senate  amends  it,  it 
is  returned  with  like  formality,  the  messenger,  after 
presentation  by  the  doorkeeper,  addressing  the  Chan*  as 
follows:  "Mr.  Speaker,  I  am  directed  by  the  Senate  to 
inform  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Senate 
has  passed  the  bill  of  the  House  [indicating  it]  with  the 
accompanying  amendments,  in  which  the  concurrence 
of  the  House  is  requested."  The  bill  then  goes  to  "the 
Speaker's  table"  and  is  subsequently  referred  to  the 
proper  standing  committee.  On  being  reported  it  fol- 
lows the  course  previously  taken,  except  that  it  need  not 
go  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  if  the  amendments  do 
not  involve  new  and  distinct  appropriations.1  In  such 
cases  the  House  not  infrequently  disagrees  to  all  amend- 
ments and  asks  at  once  for  a  conference. 

The  Speaker,  under  the  modern  practice,  usually  ap- 
points three  conferees  or  managers,  —  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  in  charge  of  the  bill,  the  member  next  in 

1  An  increase  or  decrease  of  an  amount  is  insufficient  to  send  it  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 


284    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

rank,  and  the  ranking  member  of  the  minority,  who 
continue  to  act  to  the  end.  Conferences  are  held  in  the 
room  of  the  Senate  committee  having  jurisdiction  of  the 
bill.  No  reason  exists  for  this  and  the  custom  is  often 
resented.  "Why  should  we  go  over  there  to  listen  to 
their  reasons  for  amending  our  bill,"  complainingly  in- 
quired Samuel  J.  Randall,  "when  the  House  asks  the 
conference  and  holds  possession  of  the  papers?"  Other 
famous  chairmen  have  voiced  similar  protests.  But  so 
far  as  known  only  one  conference  in  half  a  century  has 
occurred  in  the  House  wing  of  the  Capitol.  Though  en- 
tirely informal,  conferences  are  ordinarily  conducted 
behind  closed  doors.  There  is  no  presiding  officer,  al- 
though the  first-named  manager  in  each  body  assumes 
to  lead  his  section.  In  settling  points  of  difference  mem- 
bers of  both  Houses  frequently  appear,  often  upon  in- 
vitation. The  privilege  of  making  statements  is  a 
courtesy  that  sometimes  disarms  opposition.  Nor  is  it 
uncommon  to  invite  a  representative  of  the  Govern- 
ment, whose  expert  knowledge  is  of  value.  The  Presi- 
dent, also,  is  frequently  consulted  as  to  his  views  and 
wishes.  In  one  case  formal  hearings,  attended  by  wit- 
nesses and  attorneys,  aided  in  eliminating  difficulties. 
Not  infrequently  resort  is  had  to  the  most  amusing 
schemes  for  securing  a  unanimous  report.  Senator 
Hoar,  of  Massachusetts,  cites  an  instance  of  reaching  an 
agreement  by  striking  out,  hit  or  miss,  every  alternate 
amendment.1  Indeed,  it  has  been  charged  that  laws  are 
made  in  the  conference  room.  "By  our  practice,"  said 
John  Sherman,  of  Ohio,  "we  have  gradually  extended 
1  Autobiography,  vol.  n,  p.  99. 


THE  MAKING  OF  A  LAW  285 

the  powers  of  conference  committees  until  a  proposition 
to  send  a  bill  to  conference  sometimes  startles  me.  I  feel 
that  both  Houses  ought  to  make  a  stand  against  the 
attempt  to  transfer  the  entire  legislative  power  of  Con- 
gress to  such  committees."1  The  text  to  which  both 
Houses  have  agreed  cannot  in  the  slightest  particular 
be  changed  in  conference,  but  a  harmless  amendment  is 
sometimes  inserted  for  the  purpose  of  admitting  modifi- 
cations which  will  emasculate  or  defeat  the  bill.  The 
danger  of  the  House  being  deceived  into  concurrence 
is  minimized,  since  the  rules  require  that  the  report  of 
the  managers  shall  be  accompanied  by  a  detailed  state- 
ment sufficiently  explicit  to  inform  the  House  what 
effect  any  amendments  or  propositions  will  have  on 
the  measure  to  which  they  relate;  nor  can  any  confer- 
ence report  be  considered  until  such  report  and  the  ac- 
companying statement  shall  have  been  printed  in  the 
Record.  But  this  rule  does  not  apply  during  the  six  days 
preceding  the  end  of  a  session.2 

A  conference  report  is  highly  privileged.  It  may  be 
presented  at  any  time  when  the  Journal  is  not  being 
read  or  a  vote  taken.  It  has  precedence  of  a  motion  to 
adjourn,  and  the  only  business  allowed  to  intervene  is 
a  recess  previously  fixed,  or  a  question  of  privilege  which 
relates  to  the  integrity  of  the  House  as  an  agency  for 
action.  When  recession  is  reported  to  have  reached  its 
limit,  the  House  may  pass  the  bill,  but  it  cannot  submit 
matter  to  its  managers  not  originally  submitted  to  them, 
or  instruct  them  to  do  what  they  might  not  have  done 

1  48th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  3974,  4098. 
1  Rule  XVHI,  sees.  1,  2. 


286    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    . 

in  the  first  instance.  Nor  is  it  wise  to  instruct  them  not 
to  agree  to  an  amendment,  otherwise  the  Senate  may 
decline  to  confer  and  ask  a  "free  conference";  that  is, 
one  unfettered  by  instructions.1  Usually  the  House  ap- 
proves the  work  of  its  managers,  who  thereafter  often 
meet  a  more  yielding  spirit.  If  each  House  sincerely 
desires  to  pass  a  bill  an  agreement  seldom  fails. 

When  a  House  bill  has  passed  each  body,  the  clerk 
prints  it  on  parchment  and  delivers  it  to  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee on  Enrolled  Bills,  who  compares  it  with  the  en- 
grossed bill  and  reports  it  to  both  Houses.  Thereupon  it 
is  signed  by  the  Speaker  in  the  presence  of  a  quorum  and 
by  the  President  of  the  Senate  in  like  manner,  after 
which  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Enrolled  Bills 
presents  it  to  the  President,  the  date  of  such  presenta- 
tion being  entered  upon  the  Journal  of  each  House.  If 
the  President  fails  to  approve  or  to  return  it  within  ten 
days,  Sundays  excepted,  it  becomes  a  law  unless  Con- 
gress prevents  its  return  by  adjourning.  When  approved 
the  President  indicates  the  calendar  day  and  hotir  of 
signing,2  notifies  the  body  in  which  it  originated,  and 
sends  it  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  who  deposits  it  in  his 
office  for  publication  and  preservation.  It  is  usual  for 
the  President,  when  a  bill  becomes  a  law  without  his 
signature,  to  inform  the  House  in  which  it  originated. 
To  facilitate  the  approval  of  bills  on  the  last  day  of  a 
Congress,  the  President  ordinarily  occupies  the  room 
assigned  him  in  the  Senate  wing  of  the  Capitol,  although 

1  51st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  3745,  3768,  3860. 
8  Prior  to  the  Fifty-ninth  Congress  he  indicated  the  legislative  day, 
which  does  not  always  correspond  with  the  calendar  day. 


THE  MAKING  OF  A  LAW  287 

enrolled  bills  pending  at  the  close  of  a  session  may  be 
treated  at  the  next  session  of  the  same  Congress  as  if 
no  adjournment  had  occurred.  So  a  bill  signed  during  a 
recess  becomes  a  law  if  the  President  acts  within  the 
ten  days'  limitation.  After  a  bill  goes  to  the  President 
and  before  its  approval,  it  may  be  recalled  by  a  con- 
current resolution,  or,  if  an  error  exists,  corrected  by 
a  joint  resolution.1 

A  bill  disapproved  by  the  President  must  be  returned 
to  the  body  in  which  it  originated  and  the  objections 
entered  on  the  Journal.  Thereupon,  if  a  quorum  be 
present,  the  House  usually,  although  not  invariably, 
proceeds  to  consider  the  matter,  the  Speaker  putting  the 
question,  "  Will  the  House,  on  reconsideration,  agree  to 
pass  the  bill,  the  objection  of  the  President  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding?"  If  the  previous  question  be 
ordered,  the  issue  is  at  once  determined  by  a  call  of  the 
yeas  and  nays,  an  affirmative  vote  of  two  thirds  of  the 
members  present  being  sufficient  to  pass  the  bill  over 
the  veto.  If  so  passed,  it  is  sent,  together  with  the  Presi- 
dent's objections,  to  the  Senate.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
it  appears  that  two  thirds  of  the  members  are  indisposed 
to  overrule  the  veto,  a  motion  is  made  in  the  first  in- 
stance to  refer  the  bill,  with  or  without  the  message, 
or  to  lay  it  on  the  table.  This  procedure  is  held  al- 
lowable within  the  constitutional  mandate  that  the 
House  shall  enter  the  President's  objections  on  its 
Journal,  "and  proceed  to  reconsider  it."2  In  practice 
such  action,  when  taken,  is  seldom  disturbed. 

1  39th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  3241,  3357. 

2  Constitution,  art.  i,  sec.  7. 


CHAPTER  XV 

DEBATE   AND    DEBATEES 

WHEN  not  voting  the  House  is  talking.  Points  of 
order,  appeals,  motions,  methods  of  procedure,  ques- 
tions of  privilege,  considerations  of  reports  and  bills  and 
resolutions  —  all  create  differences  and  provoke  debate. 
But  under  the  present  rules  it  is  easily  controlled.  Adams 
complained  that  every  member  is  so  hemmed  in  by  rigid 
rules  that  he  cannot  open  his  lips  without  leave.1  He 
meant,  of  course,  that  one  could  neither  take  the  floor 
without  recognition,  nor  keep  it  unless  in  order.  The 
Speaker  controls  debate  on  points  of  order,  and  when- 
ever ready  to  rule  he  may  decline  to  hear  further  argu- 
ment. The  House  controls  debate  on  appeals,  on  privi- 
lege, on  procedure,  and  the  like,  and  whenever  it  has 
heard  enough  the  cry  of  "Vote!  vote!"  is  usually  effec- 
tive. Debate  on  resolutions  and  bills  considered  under 
suspension  of  the  rules  is  limited  to  forty  minutes, 
divided  equally  between  the  mover  and  the  one  demand- 
ing a  second,  who  apportion  the  time.  If  one  asks  unani- 
mous consent  for  the  immediate  consideration  of  a  bill 
a  long  dialogue  may  continue  pending  objection,  but  if 
none  be  made  the  debate  can  be  limited  by  the  previous 
question,  which  is  the  only  motion  used  for  closing  de- 
bate in  the  House  as  distinguished  from  Committee  of 
the  Whole.  Thus  debate,  whenever  or  however  it  occurs, 
1  Diary,  vol.  ix,  p.  135  (1834). 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  289 

is  dominated  by  clearly  defined  and  well-understood 
rules,  and  although  members  may  not  obtain  recogni- 
tion whenever  they  seek  it,  opportunity  to  speak,  de- 
pendent upon  the  condition  of  business  and  the  age  of  the 
session,  is  usually  given  when  the  House  goes  into  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  for  the  consideration  of  general  ap- 
propriation bills.  Several  hours  are  then  set  apart  for 
"general  debate,"  and  members  may  discuss  any  matter 
however  foreign  to  the  measure  before  the  Committee. 
This  custom  is  borrowed  from  the  House  of  Commons. 
"The  second  reading  of  an  appropriation  bill,"  says 
Lucy,  "plays  the  part  of  the  seven  baskets  in  the  parable, 
all  the  elocutionary  or  disputatious  fragments  which  re- 
main after  the  feast  being  picked  up  and  crammed  within 
its  ample  fold."  1 

"General  debate"  is  often  a  dreary  performance.  The 
contentiousness  is  not  close  enough  or  rapid  enough  to 
hold  the  interest.  One  set  speech  follows  another,  and 
although  recognition  alternates  from  one  side  to  the 
other,  the  answering  speech  seldom  bears  directly  on  the 
points  of  the  preceding  speaker.  Besides,  busy  men  who 
care  for  nothing  except  the  vital  question  involved  weary 
of  generalities  or  the  repetition  of  familiar  principles. 
Whatever  interest  attaches  to  these  speeches,  therefore, 
grows  out  of  the  manner  of  delivery,  or  the  sharp,  strik- 
ing presentation  of  the  subject-matter.  Too  often  at 
such  times  speeches  are  recited  from  memory  or  read 
from  manuscript  in  a  monotonous  tone,  not  infrequently 
to  less  than  a  dozen  persons  who  remain  out  of  compli- 
ment to  the  participants.  Nevertheless,  the  House  is  the 
1  H.  W.  Lucy,  Peeps  at  Parliament,  p.  217. 


290    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

most  indulgent  of  audiences.  It  smiles  at  feeble  jokes, 
encourages  with  occasional  applause,  and  conceals  an 
inclination  to  laugh  if  an  impassioned  orator  upsets  an 
inkstand  or  sends  a  glass  of  water  flying  over  his  neigh- 
bor. Even  the  bore  is  held  sacred  lest  in  the  struggle  for 
relief  from  tiresome  talk  the  right  of  free  speech  be  lost. 

In  early  years  members  occasionally  attempted  to 
silence  tedious  speakers  by  noisy  interruptions,1  but  in 
its  wildest  moments  the  House  never  adopted  the  intol- 
erant treatment  which  the  British  Commons  accorded 
Mr.  Gladstone  in  1885  upon  his  introduction  of  the  first 
Home  Rule  Bill.  He  pathetically  complained  that  "it 
struck  a  fatal  blow  at  the  liberties  of  debate  and  at  the 
dignity  of  Parliament."  2  When  objection  was  taken  to 
the  Colonial  Secretary  answering  questions  on  Chinese 
labor,  addressed  directly  to  the  Premier,  the  Opposition 
prevented  his  speech  by  yelling  continuously  for  one 
hour.3  Such  demonstrations  are  wholly  unknown  in  the 
American  House. 

The  custom  of  printing  undelivered  speeches  in  the 
Record  affords  additional  opportunity  for  presenting 
one's  views.  Indeed,  readers  of  the  Record  can  no  longer 
know  what  is  really  said  on  the  floor,  since  many  un- 
delivered speeches  indicate  applause  never  given  and 
questions  never  asked,  while  the  right  to  revise  delivered 
speeches  permits  omissions  and  additions.  "The  petty 
practice/*  says  McCall,  "of  editing  the  report  of 
speeches  by  inserting  'applause*  and  'laughter*  in  the 

1  John  Quincy  Adams,  Diary,  vol.  ix,  pp.  118,  152. 

2  Hansard,  May  15,  1885. 

8  Lucy,  Memories  of  Eight  Parliaments,  p.  372. 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  291 

printed  version  has  made  the  House  appear  to  be  a  very 
stupid  sort  of  body,  going  wild  with  enthusiasm  over 
eloquence  the  cheapest  and  most  fustian,  and  con- 
vulsed with  'laughter'  over  jokes  the  point  of  which 
years  of  subsequent  study  have  failed  to  disclose  "  1 
Hansard,  the  official  publication  of  the  British  Commons, 
designates  revised  remarks  by  a  star.  A  similar  use  of 
the  asterisk  would  improve  the  integrity  of  the  Record, 
for  much  that  is  spoken  is  never  printed  and  much  that 
is  printed  is  never  spoken.  "Gales  sent  me  the  manu- 
script of  his  reporter,"  wrote  Adams,  "and  I  wrote 
almost  the  whole  of  it  over  again."  2  It  is  not  surprising, 
perhaps,  that  the  sarcastic  "old  man  eloquent,"  in  his 
cooler  moments,  deemed  revision  wise,  but  a  star  should 
have  noted  the  change. 

The  five-minute  debate  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
as  stated  elsewhere,  is  at  times  highly  enjoyable.  Too 
often,  however,  it  becomes  mere  routine  work  —  a  trans- 
ference to  the  floor  of  differences  developed  in  the  com- 
mittee room,  which  the  House  hears  and  then  decides. 
This  sort  of  teamwork  has  led  a  distinguished  critic  to 
charge  that  "in  form,  committees  only  digest  the  various 
matter  introduced  by  members  and  prepare  it  for  the 
House;  but,  in  reality,  they  dictate  the  course  to  be 
taken.  The  House  sits  not  for  serious  discussion,  but  to 
sanction  the  conclusions  of  its  committees,  so  that  it  is 
not  far  from  the  truth  to  say  that  Congress  in  session 
is  Congress  on  public  exhibition,  whilst  Congress  in  its 
committee  rooms  is  Congress  at  work."  3  To  an  ob- 

1  Life  of  Thomas  B.  Reed,  p.  vii.          2  Diary,  vol.  vin,  p.  437. 
8  Woodrow  Wilson,  Congressional  Government,  p.  79  (published  in 
1885). 


292    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES     <- 

server  in  the  gallery  this  would  often  appear  to  be  true. 
With  manifold  interests  and  limited  time  legislators 
must  specialize  as  well  as  members  of  other  professions. 
Thus  each  committee  becomes  a  specialist  in  legislation, 
and  the  House,  in  disposing  of  private  and  minor  public 
bills  which  constitute  two  thirds  of  its  business,  relies 
upon  information  presented  by  its  committees.  It  sits 
as  a  court,  so  to  speak,  and  approves  or  disapproves.  In 
the  case  of  private  pension  bills  it  often  acts  perfunc- 
torily, passing  one  or  two  hundred  measures  in  as  many 
minutes.  The  House  of  Commons  conserves  its  time  by 
similar  methods.  It  appoints  four  standing  committees, 
each  composed  of  sixty  to  eighty  members  representing 
parties  in  proportion  to  their  number,  to  which  are  re- 
ferred all  measures  except  money  bills  and  those  con- 
ferring provisional  orders.  In  these  committees,  whose 
work  supersedes  action  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
twenty  is  a  quorum  and  forty  an  average  attendance. 
Their  sessions  are  public  or  private  as  each  committee 
directs,  and  their  reports  go  directly  to  the  House,  which 
perfunctorily  approves.  But  in  the  American  House,  as 
in  the  Commons,  measures  of  public  interest,  especially 
those  involving  revenue  and  appropriations,  ordinarily 
receive  thorough  consideration.  In  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives members  often  range  themselves  in  concentric 
circles  about  the  debaters,  who  are  frequently  en- 
couraged by  loud  applause. 

Possessors  of  correct  and  complete  knowledge  are  no- 
where more  willingly  heard  than  in  the  House,  and  if 
one  has  a  good  voice  it  deepens  the  interest.  "Genius  is 
not  important,"  said  Thomas  B.  Reed.  "On  the  con- 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  293 

trary  it  is  a  disqualification.  Men  are  wanted  who  have 
knowledge,  the  ability  to  sift  estimates,  to  ascertain 
the  law,  and  to  present  recommendations  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  House."  l  The  truth  of  this  statement 
is  happily  illustrated  by  the  manner  in  which  William 
B.  Washburn,  of  Massachusetts,  a  clear-headed,  sound 
business  man,  eager  to  do  justice  and  determined  to 
do  right,  disposed  of  the  cloud  of  war  claims  that  so 
heavily  burdened  Congress  after  the  close  of  the  Civil 
War.  His  thorough  investigation,  lucid  reports,  and 
sane  recommendations  quickly  gained  the  confidence 
of  the  House.  "Beneath  his  plain  courtesy,"  says  Sena- 
tor Hoar,  "was  a  firmness  and  fairness  which  Cato 
never  surpassed." 

It  frequently  happens  that  the  chairman  of  a  great 
committee  submits  to  the  House  a  complicated  bill  of 
one  hundred  or  more  printed  pages,  divided  into  sec- 
tions, each  paragraph  presenting  a  different  state  of 
facts.  To  retain  control  of  its  form  and  substance 
through  all  the  vicissitudes  of  its  consideration,  espe- 
cially if  it  be  of  a  controversial  character,  he  must  not 
only  know  the  history,  purpose,  and  need  of  every  item, 
and  with  tact  and  good  temper  answer  questions  without 
wobbling,  but  quickly  distinguish  amendments  harmful 
if  not  fatal  in  their  tendency,  and  indicate  by  timely  and 
conciliatory  suggestions  the  way  out  of  tangles  created 
in  the  heat  of  discussion.  Mr.  McKinley's  ability  to  do 
this  rested  upon  perfect  knowledge  gained  in  committee 
or  by  midnight  study,  and  it  made  him  an  ideal  chair- 
man of  Ways  and  Means. 

1  49th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  208. 


294    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

The  House  usually  possesses  a  corps  of  able  debaters, 
noticeably  limited  to  members  upon  whom  fall  the  bur- 
den of  much  talking.  It  is  practice  that  makes  an  ac- 
ceptable parliamentary  speaker.  "A  parliamentary 
orator,"  says  Justin  McCarthy,  "is  one  who  can  employ 
the  kind  of  eloquence  and  argument  which  tell  most 
readily  on  Parliament.  But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that 
the  parliamentary  orator  is  necessarily  a  great  orator  in 
the  wider  sense.  Some  of  the  men  who  made  the  greatest 
successes  as  parliamentary  debaters  have  failed  to  win 
any  genuine  reputation  as  orators  of  the  broader  and 
higher  school.  Disraeli  first  rose  to  fame  as  a  great  de- 
bater during  the  debate  on  the  abolition  of  the  Corn 
Laws,  but  he  never  succeeded  in  being  more  than  a  par- 
liamentary orator."  1  Burke  says  that  by  slow  degrees 
Charles  James  Fox  became  the  most  brilliant  and  power- 
ful debater  ever  heard  in  Parliament,  and  Fox  himself 
attributed  his  success  to  the  habit  of  speaking,  well  or 
ill,  at  least  once  every  night.  Macaulay  thinks  it  would 
be  difficult  to  name  any  great  debater  whose  knowledge 
of  the  science  of  parliamentary  defense  resembles  an  in- 
stinct. It  is  often  observed  that  a  new  member,  though 
he  has  gained  high  reputation  as  a  speaker  in  other  fields, 
struggles  piteously  with  parched  tongue  in  his  early  at- 
tempts to  address  the  House.  Morley  tells  of  Gladstone, 
at  the  beginning  of  his  parliamentary  career,  offering  up 
a  silent  prayer  before  rising  to  speak.  "I  made  a  few  re- 
marks to-day,"  wrote  John  Quincy  Adams,  soon  after 
entering  the  House  in  1831.  "I  am  so  little  qualified  by 
nature  for  an  extemporaneous  orator  that  I  was  not  a 
1  A  History  of  our  Own  Times,  vol.  i,  pp.  303-04. 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  295 

little  agitated  by  the  sound  of  my  own  voice." l  Yet, 
eleven  years  later,  when  bent  with  age  and  trembling 
with  palsy,  he  stood  in  his  place  for  an  entire  week,  pend- 
ing Wise's  resolution  to  expel  him,  and  cowed  an  angry 
majority  into  a  body  of  deeply  interested  listeners,  whose 
verdict  was  nearly  three  to  one  in  his  favor.  With  sar- 
casm always  on  tap,  he  seemed  to  spare  no  one.  Al- 
though he  never  attained  first  rank  as  a  parliamentary 
debater,  he  not  only  possessed  marked  dramatic  power, 
but  his  habit  of  seizing  upon  and  repeating  slowly,  with 
a  rising  and  falling  inflection,  a  single  word  used  by  an 
opponent,  created  a  "raw"  as  horsemen  say. 

Members  are  rare  who,  with  lightness  of  touch  and  in- 
bred courtesy,  wield  a  polished  blade,  smiiing  gently  and 
filling  the  great  hall  with  ripples  of  laughter  as  they  drive 
home  arguments  which  are  the  despair  of  their  oppo- 
nents. A  distinguished  preacher  once  attempted  it  and 
failed.  A  lecturer,  with  rounded  periods  well  memorized, 
failed  to  attract  after  the  second  effort.  A  noted  after- 
dinner  speaker  who  captivated  well-fed  audiences  seemed 
out  of  place  in  serious  debate.  An  orator,  well  groomed, 
with  raucous  voice  and  stage  stride,  held  attention  like 
an  actor  on  the  opening  night,  but  repetitions  drew  small 
houses.  Indeed,  it  is  difficult  to  tell  just  what  the  House 
will  like.  Macaulay's  description  of  the  Commons  ap- 
plies to  it.  "The  House  of  Commons,"  he  says,  "is  a 
place  to  which  I  would  not  promise  success  to  any  man. 
I  have  great  doubt  about  Jeffrey.  It  is  the  most  peculiar 
audience  in  the  world.  I  should  say  that  a  man's  being  a 
good  writer,  a  good  orator  at  the  bar,  a  good  mob  orator, 
1  Diary,  vol.  vin,  p.  424. 


296    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

or  a  good  orator  in  debating  clubs,  was  rather  a  reason 
for  expecting  him  to  fail  than  for  expecting  him  to  suc- 
ceed in  the  House  of  Commons.  A  place  where  Walpole 
succeeded  and  Addison  failed;  where  Peel  now  succeeds 
and  where  Mackintosh  fails;  where  Erskine  and  Scarlett 
were  dinner  bells;  where  Lawrence  and  Jekyll,  the  two 
wittiest  men,  or  nearly  so,  of  their  time,  were  thought 
bores,  is  surely  a  very  strange  place." l  Mr.  Elaine,  in 
his  eulogy  of  President  Garfield,  says:  "There  is  no  test 
of  a  man's  ability  in  any  department  of  public  life  more 
severe  than  service  in  the  House  of  Representatives; 
there  is  no  place  where  so  little  deference  is  paid  to  repu- 
tation previously  acquired  or  to  eminence  won  outside; 
no  place  where  so  little  consideration  is  shown  for  the 
feelings  or  failures  of  beginners.  What  a  man  gains  in 
the  House  he  gains  by  sheer  force  of  his  own  character, 
and  if  he  loses  and  falls  back  he  must  expect  no  mercy, 
and  will  receive  no  sympathy.  It  is  a  field  in  which  the 
survival  of  the  strongest  is  the  recognized  rule,  and 
where  no  pretense  can  survive,  and  no  glamour  can 
mislead.  The  real  man  is  discovered,  his  worth  is  im- 
partially weighed,  his  rank  is  irrevocably  decided."  2 

The  House  often  tires  of  talk.  Yet  floor  leaders,  like 
faithful  sentinels,  fearful  that  something  may  occur  to 
demand  their  presence,  sit  day  after  day  listening  to 
"the  dreary  drip  of  pointless  twaddle."  Often  between 
seven  and  eight  o'clock,  says  Lucy,  "when  the  House 
was  almost  empty  and  some  unimportant,  unattractive 
member  found  his  chance,  Mr.  Gladstone  sat  with  hand 

1  Trevelyan,  Life  and  Letters  of  Lord  Macaulay,  p.  57. 
t    2  Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February  27,  1882. 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  297 

to  ear.  During  the  interminable  Home  Rule  debates  he 
formed  a  habit  of  moving  to  the  gangway  end  of  the 
Treasury  Bench,  sitting  there  by  the  hour  listening  to 
members  whose  measure  of  attraction  was  indicated  by 
the  emptiness  of  the  benches."  l  A  similar  sight  may 
often  be  witnessed  in  the  American  House.  It  relieved 
the  disappointment  of  strangers,  when  visiting  an  empty 
House  in  the  seventies,  to  find  Randall  and  Garfield  pa- 
tiently attentive.  Their  names  had  become  household 
words  and  their  presence  gave  warmth  to  the  great 
chamber.  For  years  with  boldness  and  matchless  force 
they  convinced  the  country  that  its  deliberative  assem- 
bly was  under  worthy  guidance,  and  their  constant 
attendance  suggested  the  importance  of  the  questions 
arising  in  the  years  immediately  succeeding  the  Civil 
War.  At  a  later  period  Thomas  B.  Reed,  tireless,  un- 
faltering, ruthless,  held  the  weary  watch.  It  meant 
that  no  point  was  too  minute  for  his  criticism  or  too 
large  for  his  virile  grasp,  while  his  presence  encouraged 
the  hope  that  at  any  moment  his  clear,  penetrating 
voice  might  change  the  House  from  a  dull,  half -weary 
body  to  an  expectant  public  meeting.  When  he  rose,  a 
hundred  members,  catching  the  words  "Mr.  Speaker," 
hastened  from  their  seclusion  and  settled  into  an  atti- 
tude of  attention.  Without  notes  and  perhaps  without 
scruples  he  restated  the  point  at  issue,  rubbed  off  the 
paint,  picked  an  apt  illustration,  forgot  and  forgave 
nothing,  and  in  a  few  minutes,  with  well-phrased  sen- 
tences, sometimes  steeped  in  sarcasm  or  flashing  with 
wit,  disclosed  the  weakness  of  an  opponent.  Such  a 
1  H.  W.  Lucy,  Peeps  at  Parliament,  p.  178. 


298    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

speech  banishes  fatigue  like  a  night's  refreshing  sleep. 
That  is  what  the  House  likes. 

The  high-principled  orator,  dignified  in  manner  and 
unfailing  in  courtesy,  who  gives  rhetorical  finish  to  his 
sentences,  is  deeply  appreciated  by  the  House;  but  the 
real  leader  is  the  original,  daring  debater,  who  seizes  the 
opportune  moment,  and,  without  apparent  preparation, 
hurls  his  forceful,  compact  sentences,  loaded  with  de- 
structive arguments,  into  the  midst  of  his  adversaries. 
Many  historic  speeches  have  come  thus  unannounced. 
In  a  few  minutes  Henry  L.  Dawes,  by  advocating  a  free 
breakfast  table  and  tactfully  moving  the  previous  ques- 
tion, completely  wrecked  a  revenue  reform  measure 
which  sacrificed  the  protective  interests  of  New  Eng- 
land.1 Perhaps  the  most  notable  instance  of  such  readi- 
ness occurred  in  1879,  when  a  majority  of  the  House, 
chafing  under  federal  laws  governing  elections,  at- 
tempted to  force  their  repeal  by  refusing  to  make 
appropriations.  Day  after  day  the  debate  dragged 
tediously,  until  James  A.  Garfield,  prodded  by  im- 
pudent questions  and  angered  by  satirical  laughter, 
launched  into  a  thirty-minute  speech,  charging  that 
the  former  enemies  of  the  Government,  having  failed 
to  shoot  it  to  death,  now  proposed  to  starve  it  to 
death!  The  effect  was  electrical.  It  gave  purpose  to 
the  debate,  threw  the  House  into  wild  excitement,  and 
so  deeply  stirred  the  country  that  the  appropriations 
were  passed  and  the  session  hurriedly  closed.2 

Years  after  as  sudden  a  change  occurred  when  the 

1  43d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  p.  4480. 

2  46th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  115-18. 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  299 

House  levied  a  duty  on  products  coming  from  Porto 
Rico,  the  sum  so  collected  to  be  returned  to  the  Island. 
In  his  message  President  McKinley  had  advocated  free 
trade,  the  press  of  the  country  supported  the  policy,  and 
the  majority  party  approved  it.  But  in  the  discussion 
Sereno  E.  Payne,  of  New  York,  chairman  of  Ways  and 
Means,  spoke  with  such  fullness  of  knowledge,  illustrat- 
ing the  effect  of  recent  storms  upon  the  Island  and 
showing  the  need  of  immediate  funds  for  roads  and 
schools,  that  he  persuaded  his  party  in  a  single  speech  to 
adopt  the  policy  so  beneficial  to  the  impoverished  people. 
With  equal  thoroughness  James  R.  Mann,  of  Illinois, 
turned  the  chamber  into  a  great  chemical  laboratory, 
and  without  mystery  or  magic  opened  a  way  for  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Pure  Food  Bill  by  demonstrating  with  simple 
experiments  the  various  processes  of  adulterating  food 
products  with  enormous  profit.  There  was  nothing  sen- 
sational. His  readiness  in  blending  and  mixing  amazed 
his  hearers,  while  peals  of  laughter  greeted  his  versatility 
in  manufacturing  whiskey  out  of  water  and  drugs.  It 
was  the  triumph  of  preparedness. 

The  House  is  rarely  if  ever  without  a  few  effective 
debaters.  As  stated  above,  veteran  members  who  talk 
much  usually  learn  to  talk  well.  But  as  one  studies  the 
great  debates  of  the  past  century,  the  fact  appears  that 
speakers  who  have  commanded  the  country's  attention 
come  in  groups.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  the  congres- 
sional firmament  reveals  constellations  of  genius  as 
clearly  as  the  heavens  disclose  brilliant  star  clusters. 
The  jewels  in  Orion's  belt  never  shone  more  brightly 
than  did  Fisher  Ames,  of  Massachusetts,  the  transcend- 


300    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ent  orator  and  profound  lawyer;  Elias  Boudinot,  of  New 
Jersey,  the  accomplished  and  benevolent  statesman;  and 
James  Madison,  the  Constitution-maker,  who  served  in 
the  first  two  Congresses  under  President  Washington; 
while  about  them,  like  the  three  collinear  stars,  clustered 
Elbridge  Gerry,  Roger  Sherman,  and  George  Clymer, 
the  trio  of  distinguished  "signers."  These  men  repre- 
sented a  country  staggering  under  a  mountain  of  debt 
inherited  from  the  Revolutionary  struggle,  and  without 
waiting  for  the  inauguration  of  a  President  or  the  crea- 
tion of  a  Treasury  Department,  they  prepared  and 
passed  a  revenue  bill  before  the  organization  of  the 
Government  was  announced  to  foreign  nations.  "It  is 
a  circumstance  of  curious  interest,"  writes  Mr.  Elaine, 
"  that  nearly,  if  not  quite,  all  the  arguments  used  by  the 
supporters  and  opponents  of  a  protective  system  were 
presented  at  that  time  with  a  directness  and  an  ability 
which  have  not  been  surpassed  in  any  subsequent  dis- 
cussion. The  'ad  valorem'  system  of  levying  duties  was 
maintained  against  *  specific'  rates  in  almost  the  same 
language  employed  in  recent  years.  The  *  infant  manu- 
factures,' the  need  of  the  'fostering  care  of  the  Gov- 
ernment* for  the  promotion  of  'home  industries,'  the 
advantages  derived  from  'diversified  pursuits,'  the  com- 
petition of  'cheap  labor  in  Europe,'  were  all  rehearsed 
with  a  familiarity  and  ease  which  implied  their  previous 
and  constant  use  in  the  legislative  halls  of  the  different 
States  before  the  power  to  levy  imposts  was  remitted  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  Congress."  l 

The  light  of  these  patriots  had  scarcely  disappeared 
1  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  I,  p.  183. 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  301 

when  Robert  Goodloe  Harper,  of  South  Carolina,  John 
Randolph  and  John  W.  Eppes,  of  Virginia,  and  George 
W.  Campbell,  of  Tennessee,  dwarfed  the  fame  of  col- 
leagues by  their  supremacy  in  debate.  Under  their 
management,  and  especially  that  of  Randolph,  was  es- 
tablished a  national  judiciary  which  proved  so  wise  that 
the  execution  of  law  within  the  jurisdiction  of  federal 
courts,  although  enlarged  from  time  to  time,  remains  to 
this  day  substantially  the  same  as  in  the  beginning. 
After  them  came  the  famous  quintet  of  bold,  aggressive 
young  men  —  Henry  Clay,  John  C.  Calhoun,  William 
Lowndes,  Langdon  Cheves,  and  Richard  M.  Johnson, 
whose  militant  patriotism  forced  the  War  of  1812.  In 
this  brilliant  constellation  also  shone  Daniel  Webster, 
John  W.  Taylor,  and  Henry  R.  Storrs,  of  New  York, 
Philip  P.  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  and  James  Buchanan,  of 
Pennsylvania.  It  was  a  period  of  strong  wills  and  com- 
manding intellects,  when  the  Missouri  question  sud- 
denly arrayed  the  North  and  the  South  in  a  violent  and 
absorbing  conflict,  which  as  quickly  subsided  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

The  organization  of  the  Democratic  and  Whig  parties, 
constructed  on  the  ruins  of  the  old  Republican  party 
that  Jefferson  created  and  dominated  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century,  brought  into  the  congressional  heavens  an 
entirely  new  star  cluster,  which  attracted  the  country's 
attention  during  the  Speakership  of  Stevenson  and 
Polk  (1827-39).  Rufus  Choate  and  Edward  Everett 
adorned  the  earlier  part  of  it.  For  a  single  term  Sergeant 
S.  Prentiss,  of  Mississippi,  Thomas  F.  Marshall,  of  Ken- 
tucky, and  Richard  H.  Menifee,  a  young  man  of  great 


302    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

promise,  flashed  their  meteoric  light.  William  Pitt 
Fessenden,  caustic  and  stern,  also  tarried  for  a  term  be- 
fore passing  to  the  Senate,  while  Franklin  Pierce,  with 
fine  rhetoric,  handsome  features,  and  charming  manners, 
impressed  John  Y.  Mason  and  Dixon  H.  Lewis  with  his 
steadfastness  and  future  availability  for  President.  But 
the  stars  whose  light  shone  the  most  steadily  during  the 
struggles  over  the  right  of  petition,  the  principle  of  a  pro- 
tective tariff,  and  the  nullification  movement,  were  John 
Quincy  Adams  of  daring  courage;  Samuel  F.  Vinton,  of 
Ohio,  whose  rare  endowments  identified  him  with  all 
the  vital  issues;  George  Evans,  of  Maine,  incomparable 
for  masterful  argument  and  graceful  thrust  of  rapier; 
Thomas  Corwin,  of  keenest  wit  and  oratorical  power; 
John  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  a  Titan  in  offensive  and  de- 
fensive debate;  and  Henry  A.  Wise,  before  whose  ma- 
licious sarcasm  even  the  Speaker  quailed. 

A  small  star  cluster  of  the  first  magnitude  appeared 
in  the  forties,  when  the  Walker  Tariff  Bill,  the  annexa- 
tion of  Texas,  the  Mexican  War,  and  the  Clay  com- 
promises divided  Congress  and  the  country.  From  the 
South  came  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  with  frail  body  and 
massive  head;  Howell  Cobb,  of  Georgia,  faintly  indicat- 
ing leadership  proportions;  and  Robert  Toombs,  the 
fiery  apostle  of  an  unhappy  policy.  From  the  North, 
Joshua  R.  Giddings,  of  Ohio,  massive  and  muscular  in 
physique,  who  continued  the  fight  that  John  Quincy 
Adams  had  provoked  and  stubbornly  maintained; 
Robert  C.  Schenck,  of  the  same  State,  an  ideal  parlia- 
mentary talker;  Robert  C.  Winthrop,  a  graceful,  highly 
cultivated  orator,  though  never  an  effective  debater; 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  303 

Edward  Dickinson  Baker,  then  of  Illinois,  a  man  of 
extraordinary  gifts  of  eloquence ;  and  Stephen  A.  Doug- 
las and  Thaddeus  Stevens,  destined  to  be  without  liv- 
ing rivals  as  dominating  political  leaders.  Although  a 
native  of  New  England,  Douglas  in  action  was  of  a 
Western  type.  Schouler,  the  historian,  thus  describes 
him:  "He  had  a  small,  compact  frame,  whence  issued 
a  surprisingly  stentorian  voice,  and  his  type  of  eloquence 
at  once  startled  the  House  by  its  novelty.  As  he  warmed 
up  in  speech  his  grave  face  became  convulsed,  his  gesticu- 
lation frantic,  and  while  roaring  and  lashing  about  with 
energy,  he  would  strip  off  his  cravat  and  unbutton  his 
waistcoat  to  save  himself  from  choking,  until  his  whole 
air  and  aspect,  as  he  stood  at  the  desk,  was  that  of  a  half- 
naked  pugilist  hurling  defiance  at  the  presiding  officer. 
But  all  this  gave  at  once  to  his  person  that  picturesque- 
ness  which  goes  halfway  toward  making  one  a  figure  in 
public  life." 

Early  in  the  next  decade  the  vital  issue  suddenly 
changed.  Although  the  Whig  party,  weakened  by  per- 
sonal strife  and  hopelessly  divided  on  questions  of  princi- 
ple, suffered  a  crushing  defeat  in  1852,  the  South  was 
dissatisfied.  The  Mexican  War  had  added  Texas  as 
slave  territory,  but  it  had  also  given  to  the  Union  the 
great  free  Commonwealth  of  California,  while  the  grow- 
ing West  and  Northwest  threatened  to  present  other 
States  with  like  sentiments.  Unless  this  rich  territory 
could  be  opened  to  slave  labor  the  far-seeing  Southern 
leaders  saw  but  one  result  to  the  battle  between  freedom 
and  slavery,  and  to  gain  such  an  advantage  they  forced 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Leading  this 


304    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

tragedy  were  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  George  S.  Houston, 
of  Alabama,  Linn  Boyd  and  John  C.  Breckinridge,  of 
Kentucky,  William  Barksdale,  of  Mississippi,  John  S. 
Phelps,  of  Missouri,  Thomas  L.  Clingman,  of  North 
Carolina,  William  Aiken,  James  L.  Orr,  and  Lawrence 
M.  Keitt,  of  South  Carolina,  and  Thomas  S.  Bocock,  of 
Virginia.  Of  the  Southern  stars  in  the  House  only  John 
S.  Millson,  of  Virginia,  and  Thomas  H.  Benton,  of 
Missouri,  opposed  the  proposition.  Simultaneously  there 
appeared,  rising  slowly  above  the  horizon,  a  Northern 
constellation  that  blazed  the  brighter  the  nearer  it 
approached  the  zenith.  Galusha  A.  Grow  and  Schuyler 
Coif  ax;  the  two  Washburns,  Israel  and  Elihu  B.1;  Henry 
Winter  Davis,  of  Maryland;  Anson  Burlingame,  Na- 
thaniel P.  Banks,  and  Henry  L.  Dawes,  of  Massachusetts; 
John  Sherman  and  John  A.  Bingham,  of  Ohio;  Justin  A. 
Morrill,  of  Vermont,  and  Reuben  E.  Fenton,  of  New 
York.  All  were  not  orators  or  even  effective  debaters. 
Nor  did  any,  perhaps,  possess  the  imagination  that  lifts 
speeches  into  an  atmosphere  above  the  level  of  the 
Record.  But  proud  of  soul  and  weighted  with  patriotic 
responsibility,  they  championed  their  cause  with  buoy- 
ant readiness.  Thomas  B.  Reed,  who  heard  Banks  in  the 
campaign  of  1856,  presents  a  vivid  picture  of  him: 
"Banks  that  day  was  in  the  prime  of  vigor  and  personal 
comeliness.  Dressed  in  blue,  with  closely  buttoned  coat, 
his  well-chosen  language,  his  graceful  figure  and 
gesture,  and  his  aggressive  way  carried  with  him  the 
whole  audience."  2 

1  Although  brothers,  Elihu  spelled  his  name  with  a  final  "  e  "  and 
Israel  without  it. 

2  S.  W.  McCall,  Life  of  Thomas  B.  Reed,  p.  13. 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  305 

The  opening  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress  (1863) 
presented  another  remarkable  cluster.  Notable,  indeed, 
would  it  have  been  if  limited  to  William  B.  Washburn 
and  George  S.  Boutwell,  of  Massachusetts;  William  B. 
Allison  and  John  A.  Kasson,  of  Iowa;  Francis  Kernan 
and  John  A.  Griswold,  of  New  York;  and  John  A.  J. 
Creswell,  of  Maryland,  and  William  R.  Morrison,  of 
Illinois;  but  the  addition  of  James  G.  Blaine,  James  A. 
Garfield,  and  Samuel  J.  Randall  gave  it  a  character  that 
surpassed  in  brilliancy  and  commanding  intellect  even 
the  famous  galaxy  headed  by  Clay  and  Lowndes  in  the 
Twelfth  Congress.  Nor  did  it  lose  its  luster  during  the 
entire  decade,  for  as  one  after  another  disappeared 
Michael  C.  Kerr,  of  Indiana,  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of 
Massachusetts,  Eugene  Hale  and  William  P.  Frye,  of 
Maine,  and  Joseph  G.  Cannon,  of  Illinois,  filled  the  gaps. 
Others  also  gave  it  idat.  Proctor  Knott,  of  Kentucky, 
made  dullness  feel  ashamed;  Henry  J.  Raymond,  of 
New  York,  although  too  confident  of  his  splendid  gifts, 
evoked  high  compliment  by  ready  and  effective  speech; 
while  Roscoe  Conkling,  whose  "affluent  and  exuberant 
diction  was  never  surpassed  in  either  branch  of  Con- 
gress, unless,  perhaps,  by  Rufus  Choate,"  l  seemed 
supreme  in  everything  he  chose  to  do. 

The  laws  of  the  Reconstruction  period,  trampling  too 
heedlessly,  perhaps,  upon  men's  prejudices,  for  a  time 
suppressed  the  brightest  minds  of  the  South;  but  when 
statutes  ceased  to  oppress,  a  brilliant  star  group  again 
appeared  from  the  Southland,  including  Stephens  and 
Benjamin  H.  Hill,  of  Georgia;  Roger  Q.  Mills  and  John 
1  Blaine,  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  i,  p.  328. 


306    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

H.  Reagan,  of  Texas;  Eppa  Hunton  and  John  Randolph 
Tucker,  of  Virginia;  John  G.  Carlisle  and  John  C.  S. 
Blackburn,  of  Kentucky;  and  John  D.  C.  Atkins,  of 
Tennessee.  It  was  a  notable  coincidence  that  just  at 
this  time  no  less  remarkable  an  assemblage  appeared 
from  the  North,  headed  by  Thomas  B.  Reed,  William 
McKinley,  Frank  Hiscock,  of  New  York,  George  D. 
Robinson,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Benjamin  Butterworth, 
of  Ohio.  Though  the  Record  is  evidence  that  some  of 
these  newcomers  did  little  more  than  "rattle  a  defiant 
drum,"  several  showed  the  power  and  genuine  inspira- 
tion in  debate  which  mark  the  highest  forensic  success. 
The  period  of  Cannon's  Speakership  (1903-11)  was 
especially  distinguished  for  its  members  of  long  continu- 
ous service.  Never  in  the  history  of  the  House  did  so 
many  men  of  large  parliamentary  experience  appear. 
The  so-called  Clay  Congresses  (1811-25)  mustered  at  no 
time  more  than  twenty  members  who  had  served  five 
terms  each,  while  from  1789  to  1860  only  forty  exceeded 
six  terms.  After  the  Civil  War  the  average  term  of  serv- 
ice gradually  lengthened,  although  during  the  adminis- 
trations of  Speakers  Blaine  and  Kerr  and  Randall  and 
Carlisle  the  longest  consecutive  service  rarely  exceeded 
twelve  years.  Constituents  did  not  seem  to  appreciate 
the  value  of  experienced  legislators.  But  of  those  who 
assembled  in  December,  1905,  thirty-eight  had  served 
fourteen  years  or  better,  and  seventy-eight  from  ten  to 
twelve  years  each.  In  that  experienced  body  one  could 
count  many  excellent  talkers  and  several  most  effective 
debaters.  Of  this  type  were  Jonathan  P.  Dolliver,  of 
Iowa,  eloquent  and  aggressive;  Champ  Clark,  of  Mis- 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  307 

souri,  always  delightfully  interesting  and  decidedly 
human;  Theodore  E.  Burton,  of  Ohio,  a  master  of  clear 
statement  and  a  dispenser  of  unchallenged  information; 
Samuel  W.  McCall,  of  Massachusetts,  scholarly  and 
scrupulously  fair;  and  John  Dalzell,  of  Pennsylvania, 
proud  of  soul,  but  of  good  temper,  who  was  preeminently 
fitted  by  nature  to  hold  high  place  in  the  councils  of  his 
party.  In  this  group  belonged  Oscar  W.  Underwood,  of 
Alabama,  James  R.  Mann,  of  Illinois,  and  John  S. 
Williams,  of  Mississippi. 

Among  other  members  who  engaged  the  interest  of 
the  public  were  Charles  H.  Grosvenor,  of  Ohio,  and 
William  P.  Hepburn,  of  Iowa.  Side  by  side  they  sat, 
two  veterans  of  the  Civil  War,  gray  with  age,  but  ever 
adequate,  listening  with  a  chip  on  the  shoulder,  and  ever 
and  anon,  with  silver-trumpet  voice,  a  perfect  articula- 
tion, and  a  splendid  diction,  delighting  the  House  with 
the  vigor  and  freshness  of  their  speeches,  bristling  with 
sarcasm  and  political  raillery. 

Of  equal  interest  were  Robert  R.  Hitt,  of  Illinois,  and 
Marlin  E.  Olmsted,  of  Pennsylvania.  Hitt  was  cradled 
among  statesmen.  He  reported  in  shorthand  the  Lin- 
coln-Douglas debates  in  1858  —  something  of  a  feat  in 
that  day;  as  secretary  to  Oliver  P.  Morton,  the  War 
Governor  of  Indiana,  he  met  the  master-spirits  of  the 
war;  and  as  a  member  of  the  American  Legation  at  Paris, 
after  the  downfall  of  Napoleon  III,  he  came  into  more  or 
less  intimate  associations  with  the  men  worth  knowing 
in  Europe.  On  his  return  he  joined  Mr.  Blaine  in  the 
Department  of  State,  served  as  Commissioner  to  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,  and  for  twelve  years  headed  the  Com- 


308    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

mittee  on  Foreign  Affairs.  All  parties  greatly  esteemed 
him.  He  was  a  man  of  high  principle  and  amiable  char- 
acter, whose  calm  earnestness,  avoiding  extravagance 
and  yielding  nothing  to  fiery  nonsense  or  provincial  prej- 
udice, impressed  the  House  as  a  champion  of  the  dignity 
and  honor  of  his  country.  Like  Hitt,  Olmsted  had  a 
calm,  meditative  intellect,  often  coldly  analytical,  but 
never  artificial  or  ineffective.  He  was  not  eloquent.  He 
lacked  the  imagination  if  not  the  enthusiasm  of  an  or- 
ator. As  an  effective  reasoner,  however,  he  was  without 
a  rival.  In  revising  the  laws  governing  the  Philippine  Is- 
lands, a  labor  covering  most  of  one  session,  he  patiently 
and  cleverly  met  opposition  with  a  gentle,  unprejudiced 
intelligence  that  won  respect  and  rarely  failed  to  secure 
assent. 

Among  these  various  groups  were  men  whose  genius 
especially  fitted  them  for  the  work  of  the  House.  Their 
leadership  seemed  indigenous  to  the  soil.  It  required  the 
tumult  and  excitement  of  large  membership  rather  than 
the  frigid  silence  of  a  smaller  body  clearly  to  exhibit  their 
poise  as  they  calmly  rose  to  every  occasion,  phrasing 
sentences  and  selecting  words  that  conveyed  without 
anger  and  without  offense  their  aggressive,  belligerent 
attitude.  One  can  hardly  imagine  John  Quincy  Adams 
or  Joshua  R.  Giddings  serving  in  another  legislature. 
Their  places  in  parliamentary  history  could  have  become 
distinguished  only  in  the  House.  In  a  crisis,  when  col- 
leagues wavered  and  agitation  threatened  the  support 
of  a  violent  change  in  administrative  policies,  Thaddeus 
Stevens  was  exactly  the  man  to  seize  boldly  and  adroitly 
on  the  critical  moment.  His  radicalism  represented  the 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  309 

views  of  multitudes  of  people  whose  representatives 
promptly  answered  to  his  trumpet  call,  and  with  auda- 
ciously powerful  sarcasm  he  maintained  the  lofty  tradi- 
tion founded  by  Adams  in  the  House  as  much  as  did 
Disraeli  that  founded  by  Pitt  and  Fox  in  the  Commons. 
It  is  not  easy  to  think  of  Samuel  J.  Randall  and 
Thomas  B.  Reed  serving  elsewhere  than  in  the  House. 
They  were  leaders  of  men.  They  could  brighten  ^;he 
driest  details,  inspire  implicit  confidence  in  their  views, 
and  arouse  the  admiration  of  the  indifferent  until  their 
appeals  divided  members  into  two  hostile  camps;  but 
they  could  also  hold  their  alignment  without  the  loss  of  a 
vote  and  crush  a  less  confident  man  who  dared  to  offend. 
Morrison,  of  Illinois,  used  to  say  in  jest  that  no  man 
"can  be  quite  so  wise  as  'Sam'  Randall  looks."  Al- 
though Reed  voluntarily  withdrew  from  the  splendid 
arena  in  which  he  had  so  long  played  a  brilliant  part, 
and  Randall  died  a  member  of  the  House,  neither  left 
any  intimation  that  a  seat  in  the  Senate  attracted  him. 
Probably  no  member  of  the  House  ever  refused  an  elec- 
tion to  that  exalted  body.  Relief  from  the  biennial  cam- 
paign, with  its  many  harassing  features,  would  of  itself 
commend  the  change.  When  increasing  age  begins  to 
shy  at  the  more  strenuous  life,  the  desire  for  a  shift  be- 
comes even  more  potent.  This  was  Disraeli's  reason  for 
not  resisting  the  glittering  lure  of  a  coronet.  He  was  no 
longer  as  young,  he  said,  in  his  farewell  speech  at  Ayles- 
bury,  as  when  forty-three  years  before  he  had  addressed 
the  electors  of  Buckinghamshire  in  that  same  place. 
But  he  lives  in  history  only  as  the  great  leader  of  the 
Commons.  Men  have  likewise  passed  to  the  Senate 


310    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

whose  brilliant  parliamentary  careers  are  remembered 
solely  because  of  their  service  in  the  House.  Whoever 
thinks  of  John  Randolph,  or  John  Quincy  Adams,  or 
Elaine,  or  Carlisle  as  senators?  It  is  interesting  to  note, 
also,  the  long  list  of  notable  members  of  the  House  who 
never  served  in  the  Senate.  Among  them  are  Presidents 
Madison,  Polk,  Fillmore,  Lincoln,  Hayes,  Garfield,  and 
MdKinley,  and  all  the  Speakers  for  the  past  century  save 
Clay,  Bell,  Hunter,  Elaine,  and  Carlisle.  Indeed,  of  the 
array  of  brilliant  members  mentioned  in  this  chapter, 
two  thirds  never  served  in  the  Senate. 

It  is  difficult  to  get  away  from  the  men  composing 
these  various  groups,  for  whenever  subjects  of  national 
interest  have  engaged  the  attention  of  the  House  their 
speeches  adorn  the  pages  of  the  parliamentary  annals. 
Ranged  on  either  side,  they  have  alternately  carried  their 
points,  and,  although  the  legislation  of  one  decade  has 
been  modified  in  the  next,  a  glance  through  a  century 
of  lawmaking  history  clearly  shows  that  policies  which 
made  for  the  speedy  transaction  of  business,  for  better 
government,  for  larger  liberty,  and  for  the  greatest  good 
to  the  greatest  number,  have  slowly  progressed.  In  fact, 
the  tariff  is  the  only  question  of  nation-wide  interest 
which  has  not  in  some  measure  yielded  to  argument,  and 
although  the  theory  of  protection  has  dominated  the 
country  most  of  the  time  in  the  last  half-century,  the 
differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  best  mode  of  levying 
duties  on  imports  are  as  wide  to-day  as  in  the  beginning. 

It  is  doubtful  if  even  the  best  speeches  upon  questions 
of  vital  interest  are  much  read  except  as  presented 
through  the  press.  When  delivered,  the  country  care- 


DEBATE  AND  DEBATERS  311 

fully  watches  the  progress  of  a  debate,  as  it  did  when 
Congress  repealed  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  ham- 
mered into  shape  the  fourteen  tariff  acts  which  have 
followed  at  too  frequent  intervals  the  Act  of  1816;  but 
after  their  passage  few  persons  other  than  the  historian 
re-read  the  debates.  Details  are  tedious,  banter  is  un- 
gainly, sarcasm  seems  blunt,  denunciation  loses  its 
attractiveness,  and  arguments  condensed  into  a  single 
article  are  more  accessible.  Indeed,  little  is  remembered 
of  a  law  in  the  making  except  choice  bits  of  rhetoric  — 
the  literature  of  debate  —  which  find  their  way  into 
books  of  eloquence  and  form  material  for  declamation 
in  school  and  college  work.  Nevertheless,  parliamentary 
debate  will  ever  continue  to  attract.  The  clash  of  mind 
against  mind  reveals  not  only  personality,  but  the  roots 
of  the  division  which  are  traced  discriminatingly  from 
cause  to  effect.  It  is  a  field  contest.  In  modern  phrase 
it  is  "team  play,"  in  which  the  art  of  finesse  becomes  a 
necessary  part  of  the  debater's  equipment,  and  every 
maneuver  to  gain  a  superior  position  belongs  to  the 
struggle. 

Moreover,  touches  of  genius  in  the  shape  of  calm, 
didactic  exposition,  or  the  more  elaborate  sentences  of 
the  rhetorician,  half  conversational  and  half  oratorical, 
are  certain  to  get  into  the  fusing  pot,  out  of  which  the 
law  is  finally  drawn.  Apropos  of  this,  many  still  living 
will  recall  the  close  of  the  debate  on  the  Wilson  Tariff 
Bill  in  1894.  Thomas  B.  Reed  broke  his  record  of  thirty 
minutes  by  speaking  two  hours,  while  William  L.  Wilson, 
an  accomplished  orator,  took  account  of  time  no  more 
than  did  the  audience  which  filled  the  great  hall.  In 


312    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

this  debate  there  was  nothing  volcanic  —  no  trace  of 
gushing,  or  overpowering,  spontaneous  eloquence.  The 
thoughts,  too,  were  calm.  But  there  was  vigor  of  lan- 
guage, extreme  readiness,  a  versatility  that  amazed  men 
at  its  extent,  a  blending  of  details  into  concrete  proposi- 
tions that  dazzled  and  battered,  and  now  and  then  a 
sentence  of  scintillating  wit  or  impinging  sarcasm  that 
touched  off  peals  of  applause.  "To  achieve  this  with 
contested  facts  in  a  combative  life,"  says  Bagehot,  "is 
among  the  rarest  operations  of  a  rare  power."  No  one 
changed  his  mind,  however.  Lines  were  then  strictly 
drawn  and  the  result  known  in  advance;  but  the  interest 
was  not  less  intense  than  in  the  days  when  Lowndes 
argued  for  the  Act  of  1816,  or  Henry  Clay  gave  reasons 
for  presenting  the  Bill  of  1833. 

Interest  is  added  to  these  spectacular  occasions  by 
the  presence  of  a  full  House,  sitting  in  martial  array. 
If  it  happens  to  be  evening  the  illuminated  ceiling  of 
the  chamber  throws  a  soft,  rich  light  upon  the  scene,  the 
crowded  galleries  catch  the  spirit  that  reigns  upon  the 
floor,  and  for  the  moment  the  salvation  of  the  country 
seems  to  hang  upon  the  voting  down  or  up  of  the 
measure. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

CONTESTED   ELECTION   CASES 

THE  constitutional  provision  that  "each  House  shall 
be  the  judge  of  the  elections,  returns,  and  qualifications 
of  its  own  members"  gives  a  majority  the  right  to  dis- 
pose of  contested  election  cases  as  party  interest  deter- 
mines.1 There  is  neither  appeal  nor  review.  Although 
precedents  be  ignored,  statutes  neglected,  and  the  rules 
of  evidence  disregarded,  there  is  no  redress.  Conscious 
of  this  power  the  House,  for  a  century  and  a  quarter,  has 
been  rendering  partisan  judgments. 

Early  in  its  history  it  evinced  a  desire  to  treat  such 
cases  impartially.  Its  first  Committee  on  Elections, 
headed  by  George  Clymer,  of  Pennsylvania,  recog- 
nized the  sacredness  of  titles  to  seats,  and  in  present- 
ing the  facts,  uncolored  by  partisan  influences,  it  enabled 
the  House  to  act  fairly  and  justly.  The  disposition  of 
the  famous  case  of  Anthony  Wayne,  the  Revolutionary 
hero,  is  a  notable  illustration  of  this  loyalty  to  principle. 
It  is  easy  to  imagine  the  influence  of  Wayne's  patriotic 
services.  The  memory  of  his  conduct  at  the  battles  of 
Brandywine  and  Germantown  and  Monmouth,  and  his 
brilliant  achievement  in  carrying  Stony  Point  with  the 
bayonet  at  midnight,  deeply  affected  his  colleagues.  To 
members  from  the  South  his  courage  in  saving  Lafayette 
in  Virginia  and  his  superb  skill  in  aiding  at  the  siege  of 
1  Constitution,  art.  i,  sec.  5. 


314    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Yorktown,  especially  commended  him.  But  the  testi- 
mony in  his  case  revealed  gross  errors,  if  not  criminal 
suppression  of  the  returns.  Thereupon  the  House,  by  a 
unanimous  vote,  declared  the  seat  vacant,  although  it 
seemed  to  hold  Wayne  guiltless  of  any  wrongdoing,  since 
it  soon  after  supported  President  Washington's  recom- 
mendation that  he  be  appointed  general-in-chief  of  the 
army. 

To  guide  it  in  the  settlement  of  contests  the  House, 
in  1791,  appointed  Fisher  Ames,  of  Massachusetts, 
chairman  of  a  committee  to  prepare  a  uniform  mode  of 
procedure.  His  admirable  report,  which  fixed  the  time 
for  taking  depositions  and  prescribed  rules  for  governing 
the  procedure,  formed  the  basis  of  the  Statute  of  1798. 
This  gave  the  settlement  of  disputed  titles  the  character 
of  a  judicial  proceeding.  But  a  violent  antagonism  be- 
tween the  Federalists  and  Anti-Federalists,  revealed  in 
the  case  of  Joseph  B.  Varnum,  of  Massachusetts  (1795), 
early  established  the  rule  that  might  makes  right.  In  his 
first  campaign  for  Congress,  Varnum,  who  was  destined 
to  become  Speaker,  left  a  trail  of  questionable  doings 
behind  him.  It  appeared  from  a  memorial  submitted  by 
Theodore  Sedgwick,  the  Federalist  leader,  that  the 
board  of  selectmen  in  Varnum's  home  town,  of  which 
Varnum  himself  was  a  member,  had  returned  sixty  votes 
more  than  the  town  was  entitled  to,  thus  giving  him 
eleven  majority.  In  the  debate  Sedgwick  asked  that 
testimony  be  taken  under  the  procedure  established  by 
the  Ames  report,  since  the  House  alone  could  compel 
the  contumacious  town  clerk  to  produce  the  record  con- 
taming  the  names  of  the  illegal  voters.  To  this  Varnum 


CONTESTED  ELECTION  CASES        315 

strenuously  objected.  Such  a  procedure,  he  insisted, 
would  make  the  House  a  party  to  the  investigation,  a 
precedent  which,  if  once  established,  must  greatly  harass 
sitting  members.  He  thought  the  complainants  should 
first  present  the  names  of  the  voters  alleged  to  be  illegal, 
and  when  told  that  his  co-conspirator,  the  town  clerk, 
refused  to  produce  the  records,  without  which  the 
spurious  names  could  not  be  discovered,  he  introduced 
evidence  that  the  methods  practiced  by  the  other  side 
disclosed  the  only  reprehensible  conduct.  Nevertheless, 
the  Anti-Federalists,  who  happened  to  be  in  control, 
sustained  Varnum's  objection  to  summoning  the  town 
clerk,  and  later  adopted  a  resolution  declaring  "that  the 
charges  against  him  are  wholly  unfounded,  and  that  his 
conduct  appears  to  have  been  fair  and  unexceptional 
throughout  the  whole  transaction."  l  Thus,  amidst  an 
outburst  of  derisive  laughter,  the  incident  closed  like  a 
harlequinade. 

This  case,  so  unblushingly  violative  of  all  principles 
of  equity,  tended  to  make  decisions  in  election  contests 
more  and  more  indefensible.  The  failure  to  reenact  the 
Statute  of  1798,  which  expired  by  limitation  in  1804, 
indicated  a  growing  disposition  to  treat  such  contests 
entirely  from  a  party  standpoint.  The  Kentucky  case 
of  Letcher  vs.  Moore  (1833)  illustrated  the  length  to 
which  well-meaning  members  often  allowed  their  per- 
sonal prejudices  or  party  fealty  to  govern  in  such  mat- 
ters. By  willfully  withholding  a  poll-book  a  sheriff  of 
one  of  the  five  counties  composing  the  district  prevented 
the  issue  of  a  certificate  to  Letcher,  who  had  received  a 
1  4th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  659. 


316    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

majority  of  all  the  votes.  No  one  believed  Moore  en- 
titled to  the  seat,  but  the  absence  of  a  certificate  pre- 
sented a  chance  to  challenge  Letcher's  title,  and  by  the 
very  close  vote  of  112  to  114  the  House  refused  to  seat 
him,  declaring  the  place  vacant.1  "The  House  stultified 
itself,"  wrote  Adams,  "by  shrinking  from  the  decision 
which  had  been  forced  upon  it."  2 

This  astonishing  result,  obtained  by  setting  aside 
valid  returns  without  the  slightest  excuse,  encouraged 
members  in  the  next  Congress  to  dispose  of  the  North 
Carolina  case  of  Newlands  vs.  Graham  with  even  less 
regard  for  the  proprieties.3  Graham's  certificate  showed 
seven  majority,  but  the  House,  without  the  slightest 
examination,  "excluded  the  rightful  member  and  came 
within  one  vote  of  admitting  the  intruder."  4 

If  a  majority,  without  need  of  recruits,  wantonly  un- 
seats opponents  simply  to  gratify  partisan  prejudices, 
it  is  certain  to  disregard  all  semblance  of  fairness  when 
control  of  the  House  hinges  on  its  action.  This  truism 
was  illustrated  in  the  Mississippi  case  of  Prentiss  and 
Word  vs.  Claiborne  and  Gholson  (1837).  In  response  to 
President  Van  Buren's  call  for  an  extra  session,  the 
governor,  under  the  general  authority  of  the  Constitu- 
tion to  fill  vacancies,  issued  writs  for  a  special  election 
to  choose  Representatives  to  serve  "until  superseded  by 
the  members  chosen  at  the  regular  election  on  the  first 
Monday  and  Tuesday  in  November."  Under  this  proc- 
lamation Claiborne  and  Gholson  were  duly  elected  and 

1  23d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Debates,  pp.  2130-60. 

2  Diary,  vol.  rx,  p.  445. 

8  24th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Rep.  no.  378. 
4  John  Quincy  Adams,  Diary,  vol.  ix,  p.  445. 


CONTESTED  ELECTION  CASES        317 

took  their  seats  in  September.  The  evidence  of  a  political 
reaction  throughout  the  country,  induced  by  the  "  hard 
times"  of  that  year,  suggested  the  advisability  of  re- 
taining the  sitting  members  throughout  the  entire  Con- 
gress, and  early  in  October,  on  the  plea  that  the  governor 
had  exceeded  his  power  in  limiting  their  service,  the 
House  declared  them  elected  for  the  full  term.  There- 
upon Claiborne  and  Gholson  to  escape  defeat  at  the 
polls,  cunningly  renounced  their  candidacy  for  reelection 
in  November.  This  left  the  field  open  to  Sergeant  S. 
Prentiss  and  Thomas  J.  Word. 

Prentiss  had  already  won  a  nation-wide  fame  as  an 
orator,  and  his  contest  crowded  the  floor  and  galleries 
with  Washington's  intellectual  life,  eager  to  hear  the 
extraordinary  Mississippian  with  "the  big  towering 
head"  and  a  voice  resembling  "the  sweet,  strong  tones 
of  a  great  organ."  In  the  argument  Claiborne  denied  the 
governor's  authority  to  limit  his  term,  held  the  action 
of  the  House  in  October  res  adjudicata,  and  declared  the 
voters  of  Mississippi  knew  nothing  of  the  limitation, 
their  intention  being  to  elect  for  two  years  instead  of  two 
months.  Prentiss,  claiming  that  the  voters  understood 
the  limitation,  pronounced  it  infamous  to  charge  the 
people  of  a  great  State  with  ignorance.  He  also  stigma- 
tized the  October  action  of  the  House  as  a  gross  legisla- 
tive usurpation.  If  the  governor  had  no  right  to  limit 
the  term,  he  said,  the  House  had  no  power  to  extend  it. 
Congress  may  seat  or  exclude,  but  it  cannot  elect,  a 
member.  Prentiss  spoke  two  hours  a  day  for  three  con- 
secutive days,  and  at  its  conclusion  took  his  place  among 
the  greatest  orators  of  his  time.  Mr.  Webster  declared 


318    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

that  "no  one  can  equal  him."  John  C.  Calhoun  pro- 
nounced it  "splendid,  splendid,  splendid!"  with  addi- 
tional emphasis  on  each  repetition  of  the  word.  John 
Quincy  Adams,  who  rarely  commended  and  never  flat- 
tered, thought  it  "full  of  spirit  and  of  argument,  and 
seldom  surpassed  as  a  specimen  of  eloquence."  Sixteen 
years  afterward  President  Fillmore  wrote:  "It  was  the 
most  brilliant  speech  I  ever  heard." 

It  proved  more  than  brilliant,  however.  The  argu- 
ment that  the  House  may  seat  or  exclude,  but  cannot 
elect,  captured  the  legislative  mind,  and  the  October 
edict  was  rescinded  and  the  would-be  usurpers  un- 
seated.1 

This  should  have  opened  the  door  to  Prentiss  and 
Word,  whose  credentials,  regular  hi  form,  sufficient  in 
law,  and  representing  an  unimpeached  majority,  were 
based  upon  the  November  election.  But  the  loss  of  con- 
trol loomed  big  in  the  eyes  of  Administration  supporters, 
and  the  vote  refusing  them  admittance  resulted  in  a  tie, 
117  to  117.2  This  gave  Speaker  Polk  the  casting  vote. 
As  elsewhere  related,  Polk  was  an  able,  bold,  ambitious 
politician,  who  measured  men  and  means  according  to 
their  value  in  advancing  his  personal  interests,  which 
just  then  centered  on  the  governorship  of  Tennessee,  and 
although  his  hesitation,  and  finally  his  whispered  "Aye," 
faintly  heard  in  a  House  profoundly  silent,  indicated  that 
the  famous  orator  had  captured  his  reason,  he  preferred 
to  obey  the  voice  of  selfishness.  No  applause  followed 
the  announcement.  Men  recognized  it  as  a  Pyrrhic 
victory.  "This  has  been  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
1  25th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  158.  2  Ibid. 


CONTESTED  ELECTION  CASES        319 

conflicts  between  honest  principle  and  party  knavery 
that  I  ever  witnessed,"  wrote  Adams.  "The  result  is  a 
parti-colored  composition  between  right  and  wrong  — 
half  honest  and  hah5  knavish.  The  retribution  upon 
Claiborne  and  Gholson  is  signal."  *  But  Prentiss  and  his 
colleague  were  not  defeated.  The  voters  of  Mississippi 
shared  the  indignation  of  the  country,  and  at  a  special 
election,  called  immediately  thereafter,  both  received  an 
overwhelming  majority.2  On  presenting  himself  before 
the  Speaker  to  be  sworn,  Prentiss  claimed  his  seat  by 
virtue  of  the  November  election,  holding  the  more  re- 
cent one  to  be  unconstitutional.  To  this  Polk  made  no 
answer.  But  at  the  close  of  the  Congress,  when  the 
Speaker's  friends  sought  to  pass  the  usual  vote  of 
thanks,  Prentiss's  brilliant  and  caustic  summary  of 
Polk's  uninviting  character  as  a  presiding  officer  forced 
a  speech  of  glorification  and  pique.3 

The  stinging  reproof  administered  by  the  people  of 
Mississippi  in  no  wise  modified  the  House  procedure. 
Partisan  influences  not  only  dictated  decisions,  but  con- 
tests without  merit  found  encouragement  for  the  pur- 
pose of  controlling  the  organization  of  the  House.  To 
such  an  extent  was  this  practiced  that  hi  the  next  Con- 
gress (1840)  a  hold-over  clerk  became  the  chief  con- 
spirator in  the  famous  New  Jersey  contest  known  as  the 
"Broad  Seal  case."  4  Attempts  to  reform  such  practices 
finally  resulted  in  the  Act  of  1851,  which  governs  the 

1  Diary,  vol.  ix,  p.  488. 

2  25th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  95;  Ibid.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  104, 
150,  158,  and  Appendix  pp.  68,  93,  124,  127. 

3  See  chap,  v,  p.  72. 

4  See  chap,  n,  p.  14. 


320    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

present  procedure.1  It  provides  that  a  contestant  must 
serve  within  thirty  days  an  "intelligible"  notice,  specific 
in  its  allegations,  which  the  contestee  must  answer 
within  thirty  days;  that  testimony  must  be  taken  during 
the  next  ninety  days,  the  contestant  being  entitled  to 
the  first  forty  and  the  last  ten;  that  either  party  may 
apply  for  subpoenas  to  any  state  or  federal  judge,  or  to 
any  mayor,  recorder,  notary  public,  or  register  in  bank- 
ruptcy, and  in  their  absence  to  any  two  justices  of  the 
peace  within  the  district;  that  if  consent  be  given  in 
writing  the  parties  may,  without  further  notice,  take 
depositions  before  any  authorized  officer,  but  witnesses 
must  be  subpoenaed  five  days  in  advance  and  are  not 
required  to  leave  their  county.  The  testimony,  including 
papers  and  ballots,  after  being  duly  attested  by  wit- 
nesses, must  be  transmitted  by  the  officer  taking  it  to 
the  clerk  of  the  House,  who,  within  twenty  days  there- 
after, must  notify  the  parties  to  appear  and  select  such 
portions  as  they  desire  printed,  the  pleadings  and  an 
index  being  a  part  of  the  record.  Within  sixty  days  after 
printing  the  parties  must  exchange  briefs,  which,  with 
the  record  and  all  unprinted  testimony,  are  filed  with 
the  Committee  on  Elections. 

In  its  investigation  the  Committee  may  examine  bal- 
lots, and  in  case  of  doubt  or  ambiguity  as  to  votes,  it  may 
take  testimony,  especially  where  wrongly  written  bal- 
lots or  the  mistakes  of  returning  officers  appear,  pro- 
vided such  errors  contribute  to  change  the  result.  The 
House  never  presumes  fraud,  however  glaring  and  wide- 
spread, so  that  a  contestant  must  invalidate  the  con- 
1  29  Stat.  L.,  p.  568. 


CONTESTED  ELECTION  CASES        321 

testee's  title  by  proving  his  own.  The  mere  showing  of 
enough  illegal  votes  to  change  the  result  will  not  suffice. 
The  fact  must  affirmatively  appear  that  the  contestee 
benefited  by  them.  But  the  burden  of  proof  shifts  to  the 
sitting  member  whenever  the  Committee  ascertains  that 
the  credentials  originally  belonged  by  right  to  the  con- 
testant. Where  notices  of  election  fail  to  reach  a  town 
and  no  votes  are  cast,  proof  is  required  of  the  number 
of  voters  thus  disfranchised  in  order  to  show  that  title 
would  continue  in  the  returned  member  if  all  such  votes 
had  been  cast  against  him.  It  is  of  no  consequence  that 
a  contestant  receives  fewer  votes  than  the  head  of  his 
party  ticket.  Nor  does  the  candidate  receiving  the  next 
highest  number  take  the  seat  if  the  one  having  a  major- 
ity dies  or  is  excluded. 

In  the  House,  during  the  consideration  of  an  election 
case,  both  parties  are  heard,  the  contestant  opening  and 
closing  the  debate.  Counsel  was  occasionally  allowed  in 
earlier  years,  but  since  1856  the  practice  has  been  dis- 
continued. When  a  delegate  who  could  neither  speak 
nor  understand  English  appeared  from  the  Territory  of 
New  Mexico,  the  Committee  represented  him  on  the 
floor. 

The  provisions  of  the  Act  of  1851,  however,  have  never 
governed  the  House.  Israel  Washburn,  of  Maine,  de- 
clared it  directory,  not  binding.  "By  the  Constitution," 
he  said,  "each  House  is  made  the  sole  judge  of  the  re- 
turns, qualifications,  and  election  of  its  own  members, 
and  each  body  must  and  can  judge  for  itself.  The  law  of 
1851  is  simply  the  advice  or  suggestion  of  reasonable 
and  just  men  as  to  the  proper  course  to  be  taken  and 


THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

nothing  more."  1  Unfortunately,  a  disposition  to  ignore 
the  act  has  long  controlled  the  House.  It  often  waives 
specifications  when  a  notice  is  vague,  or  unrelated  to 
vital  questions,  or  defective  as  to  the  number  of  illegal 
votes.  In  one  case  it  heard  a  contest  upon  the  merits, 
although  the  notice  was  too  imperfect  to  support  a  deci- 
sion. At  another  time  it  ignored  the  fact  that  the  first 
notice  was  irregular  and  that  the  supplemental  notice 
was  filed  after  the  time  required  by  law.  One  House 
insisted  upon  considering  a  question  not  raised  in  the 
notice,  and  another,  after  ruling  a  notice  insufficient, 
permitted  the  contestant  to  amend  orally.  On  the  other 
hand,  because  a  contestant  did  not  demand  it  in  his 
notice,  the  House  refused  to  count  the  votes  of  one  pre- 
cinct, although  the  testimony  justified  it. 

Discretion  is  likewise  exercised  in  taking  testimony. 
The  House  sometimes  specifies  the  character  and  often 
fixes  the  time  and  place  of  taking  it,  especially  if  the 
provisions  of  the  law  exclude  or  prevent  its  being  taken  in 
time  to  secure  a  decision.  The  evidence  being  imperfect 
or  insufficient,  the  House  has  frequently  authorized  the 
Committee  to  take  additional  testimony.  In  one  in- 
stance it  prescribed  a  course  of  procedure  for  serving  a 
notice  and  taking  testimony.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has 
as  often  ignored  testimony  on  mere  technicalities.  One 
House  rejected  important  testimony-in-chief  because 
taken  in  the  time  allowed  for  rebuttal;  another  refused 
to  allow  additional  newly  discovered  testimony,  al- 
though the  supporting  affidavits  disclosed  a  deliberate 
and  carefully  planned  conspiracy  to  seat  the  contestee. 
1  35th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  452. 


r 

CONTESTED  ELECTION  CASES        323 

Indeed,  so  many  contrary  precedents  have  been  estab- 
lished that  whatever  the  majority  desires  to  accomplish, 
whether  honest  or  dishonest,  can  be  supported  by  pre- 
cedent. Or,  to  state  it  in  another  form,  it  may  be  said 
that  adherence  to  or  departure  from  precedents  and 
statutory  procedure  occurs  whenever  it  will  subserve 
the  interest  of  the  majority.  "The  decision  of  election 
cases,"  says  Thomas  B.  Reed,  "invariably  increases  the 
party  which  organizes  the  House  and  appoints  the  Com- 
mittee on  Elections.  Probably  there  is  not  an  instance 
on  record  where  the  minority  benefited."  *  Reed  him- 
self had  had  a  contest.  The  charge,  based  upon  the  in- 
timidation of  voters,  was  supported  by  such  indifferent 
proof  that  it  invited  ridicule  rather  than  serious  con- 
sideration. "I  can  only  say,"  he  wrote,  in  concluding  a 
brief  of  less  than  three  pages,  "  that  my  experience  with 
the  Democracy  of  my  district  does  not  lead  me  to  regard 
them  as  cowards.  If  I  could  scare  them  as  easily  as  the 
contestant  seems  to  think  and  by  means  as  inadequate 
as  he  has  proved,  I  have  certainly  been  recreant  in  a  plain 
duty.  I  ought  to  have  scared  more  of  them."  Neverthe- 
less, inconsequential  as  the  case  was,  he  recognized  that 
he  retained  his  seat  simply  because  his  party  happened  to 
control  the  House. 

When  asked  what  were  party  questions,  George  D. 
Robinson,  of  Massachusetts,  afterwards  governor,  face- 
tiously replied,  "I  know  of  none  except  election  cases." 
Upon  entering  the  room  of  the  Committee  on  Elections 
of  which  he  was  a  member,  Thaddeus  Stevens  inquired 
the  point  in  the  case  under  investigation.  "There  is  not 
1  North  American  Review,  vol.  151,  p.  114. 


324    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

much  point  to  it,"  replied  his  colleague;  "they  are  both 
damned  scoundrels."  "Well,"  said  Stevens,  "which  is 
the  Republican  damned  scoundrel?  I  want  to  go  for 
him."  l  When  privilege  was  sought  to  prepare  and 
publish  a  digest  of  contested  cases  adjudicated  in  the 
Fifty-first  Congress,  John  H.  Rogers,  of  Arkansas,  face- 
tiously moved  an  amendment  that  "any  member  who 
referred  to  them  hereafter  as  an  authority  should  be  sen- 
tenced to  penitentiary  for  life."  2  George  F.  Hoar,  of 
Massachusetts,  who  served  on  the  Committee  on  Elec- 
tions during  the  Forty-second  Congress,  confesses  that 
"whenever  there  is  a  plausible  reason  for  making  a  con- 
test the  dominant  party  in  the  House  almost  always 
awards  the  seat  to  the  man  of  its  own  side."  3  He  might 
with  pardonable  propriety  have  omitted  "almost,"  for 
of  three  hundred  and  eighty-two  cases  of  contest  sub- 
mitted up  to  and  including  the  Fifty-ninth  Congress 
(1907),  only  three  persons  not  of  the  dominant  party 
obtained  seats. 

These  partisan  settlements  have  enormously  mul- 
tiplied contests.  Their  number  in  early  Congresses, 
when  the  membership  was  comparatively  small,  often 
occasioned  surprise,  but  since  the  Civil  War  the  number 
not  infrequently  aggregates  twelve  to  fifteen  in  a  single 
Congress.  In  the  Forty-seventh  Congress  (1881)  it 
reached  twenty-one,  and  in  the  Fifty-fourth  (1895), 
thirty-one,  of  which  twenty-six  came  from  the  Southern 
States.  From  1865  to  1905  two  hundred  and  ninety-two 

1  George  F.  Hoar,  Autobiography,  vol.  I,  p.  268. 

2  51st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.  Record,  p.  2334. 
8  Autobiography,  vol.  I,  p.  268. 


CONTESTED  ELECTION  CASES        325 

cases  were  filed,  of  which  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven 
came  from  the  South. 

The  increasing  number  of  contests  has  correspond- 
ingly augumented  the  cost.  The  law  allows  each  party 
in  interest  $2000  for  expenses,  based  upon  a  sworn  de- 
tailed statement,  with  a  voucher  for  each  item.1  But 
double  this  amount  is  often  voted.  In  the  celebrated 
Pennsylvania  case  of  Curtin  vs.  Yocum,  which  arose  in 
the  Forty-sixth  Congress  (1879),  the  House  allowed 
each  party  $8000,  which  defrayed  only  a  fraction  of  the 
expense.  Ten  cases  hi  the  Forty-sixth  Congress  mulcted 
the  Government  $59,567,  and  the  twenty-one  cases  filed 
in  the  Forty-seventh,  of  which  all  were  not  prosecuted, 
cost  $71,285.  During  the  eight  Congresses  succeeding 
the  Forty-second,  eighty-four  cases  cost  $318,000,  or  an 
average  of  nearly  $40,000  for  each  Congress  or  $4000 
per  case  filed.  In  1903  a  contestant  from  Missouri  got 
his  seat  the  last  week  of  the  Congress,  drawing  $10,000 
salary,  while  the  contestee  had  drawn  as  much.  In  ad- 
dition each  received  $2000  for  expenses. 

The  swelling  of  testimony,  which  often  fills  hundreds 
of  pages,  adds  enormously  to  the  labor  of  examination 
and  decision.  Nothing  can  be  excluded  which  either 
party  desires  inserted  in  the  record.  Objection  may  be 
noted,  but  the  testimony  is  taken.  Only  those  who  incur 
the  expense  can  really  appreciate  this  burden.  Besides, 
a  fiercely  contested  election  at  the  polls  is  not  unlikely 
to  be  continued  for  another  year  with  equal  fierceness 

1  Witnesses  fees  are  limited  to  seventy-five  cents  per  day  and  five 
cents  a  mile  for  travel.  Fees  of  officials  employed  in  taking  testimony 
are  governed  by  the  laws  of  the  State  wherein  the  service  is  rendered. 


326    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

at  Washington.  Indeed,  comparatively  few  contestants 
appear  except  those  belonging  to  the  party  which  organ- 
izes the  House.  This  accounts  for  the  absence  of  con- 
tests from  the  South  during  the  administration  of 
Speakers  Kerr,  Randall,  Carlisle,  and  Crisp,  and  the 
phenomenally  large  number  presented  during  the  Speak- 
ership  of  Keifer  and  Reed. 

Although  three  Committees  on  Elections  are  now 
appointed  instead  of  one  as  formerly,  members  often 
find  it  physically  impossible,  with  their  other  duties,  to 
give  to  the  many  cases  the  study  necessary  to  their 
proper  disposition.  In  the  House  their  consideration  is 
no  less  burdensome.  Six  cases  in  the  Forty-eighth  Con- 
gress consumed  thirteen  days,  four  cases  in  the  Fiftieth 
took  nine  days,  and  nine  cases  in  the  Fifty-first  occupied 
sixteen  days,  or  one  ninth  of  the  entire  session.  Yet 
after  the  toil,  the  expenditure  of  money,  and  the  con- 
sumption of  so  much  time,  the  decision,  whatever  it  may 
be,  is  discredited  as  partisan.  No  better  illustration  of 
this  practice  need  be  cited  than  the  West  Virginia  case 
of  Smith  vs.  Jackson,  arising  in  the  Fifty-first  Congress 
(1889),  and  made  famous  by  the  action  of  Speaker  Reed, 
who,  to  secure  its  consideration,  initiated  the  counting 
of  a  quorum.  The  governor  gave  Jackson,  the  sitting 
member,  a  certificate  based  on  a  plurality  of  three  votes. 
Smith,  the  contestant,  claimed  a  plurality  of  twelve 
votes.  The  law  of  West  Virginia  made  it  the  duty  of  the 
commissioners  of  county  courts  in  each  congressional 
district  to  transmit  to  the  governor  a  certificate  of  the 
result  of  elections  within  their  respective  counties,  in 
which  the  number  of  votes  received  should  be  set  forth 


CONTESTED  ELECTION  CASES         327 

in  words.  The  commissioners  of  Pleasant  County  certi- 
fied that  Jackson  "received  eight  hundred  and  twe 
votes."  Of  course,  "t-w-e"  was  intended  for  "two,"  the 
clerk  having  omitted  to  close  the  "o."  But  the  governor 
treated  it  as  an  abbreviation  of  "twelve,"  although  no 
one  ever  before  recognized  such  an  abbreviation,  which 
might  stand  for  "twenty"  as  well  as  "twelve."  More- 
over, "twe,"  under  the  law,  stood  for  a  written  number, 
and  no  number  of  three  letters  beginning  with  "tw" 
is  or  ever  was  known  to  the  English  language  except 
"two."  Besides,  the  records  of  the  Pleasant  County 
clerk  showed  Jackson's  vote  to  be  802.  This  correction 
gave  Smith  seven  majority.  Nevertheless,  the  decision 
was  denounced  as  grossly  partisan.1 

Although  Committees  on  Elections  are  usually  made 
up  of  able  and  conscientious  members,  their  work  has 
neither  lessened  the  number  of  cases  nor  decreased  ex- 
penses. In  the  presence  of  such  a  record  it  is  so  obvious 
that  something  essentially  vicious  exists  in  this  settle- 
ment that  one  naturally  turns  to  the  procedure  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  Originally  it  disposed  of  contests  hi 
the  American  fashion.  When  the  system  became  intoler- 
able, it  adopted  in  1770  what  it  was  pleased  to  call  a 
"reform  measure,"  under  which  thirty-three  members 
were  chosen  by  lot.  Subsequently  each  party  struck 
off  eleven  names,  leaving  a  committee  of  eleven  to  whom 
were  referred  all  contests.  In  1839  Adams  spoke  of  this 
arrangement  as  "complicated,"  adding:  "The  ultimate 
result  is  chance  which  is  a  more  impartial  arbiter  than 

1  51st  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Rep.,  no.  19;  Rowell,  p.  13;  Record, 
pp.  1025-43;  Journal,  pp.  187-90. 


328    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

will."  *  In  1848  the  English  substituted  a  Committee  on 
Elections,  appointed  by  the  Speaker  and  approved  by 
the  House.  This  proved  so  unsatisfactory  that  in  1868 
the  Commons  turned  the  whole  matter  over  to  the 
judges  of  the  Queen's  Bench,  the  Common  Pleas,  and 
the  Exchequer,  with  power  to  establish  a  procedure  for 
determining  the  facts  and  principles  of  law.  Under  this 
system  each  case  is  assigned  to  a  judge,  who  visits  the 
election  district  at  once,  examines  witnesses,  and  deter- 
mines the  facts  on  the  spot,  with  the  result  that  com- 
paratively few  contests  now  arise,  while  expenses  are 
greatly  reduced.  Indeed,  so  satisfactory  is  the  English 
plan  that  Thomas  B.  Reed  advised  Congress  to  estab- 
lish a  similar  tribunal,  expressing  the  belief  that  its  de- 
cisions, if  acquiesced  in  for  a  few  years,  would  create  a 
dominating  sentiment  sufficient  to  compel  then*  accept- 
ance. Acting  on  his  advice,  the  Committee  on  Elections 
in  1895  reported  a  bill  giving  United  States  District 
Courts  jurisdiction.  But  nothing  came  of  it.  To  the 
objection  that  such  assignments  impair  the  usefulness 
of  judges,  it  is  urged  that  English  courts  have  not  so 
suffered,  while  publicity  safeguards  impartiality. 

The  existence  of  such  a  tribunal  in  1887  must  have 
greatly  benefited  Speaker  Carlisle,  who  suddenly  be- 
came a  contestee.  After  serving  notice  of  contest  and 
examining  ten  witnesses,  the  contestant  moved  the 
Committee  on  Elections  to  appoint  a  subcommittee  to 
take  further  testimony,  supporting  his  motion  by  affi- 
davits affirming  the  contestee's  admission  of  defeat;  a 
midnight  conference  of  the  contestee  and  his  friends  for 

1  Diary,  vol.  x,  p.  170. 


CONTESTED  ELECTION  CASES        329 

the  purpose  of  securing  the  election  by  fraud;  the  ab- 
sence in  most  counties  of  tickets  bearing  the  contestee's 
name;  the  presence  of  poll-books  in  which  the  names  of 
scores  of  voters  appeared  in  the  same  handwriting;  and 
the  existence  of  many  certificates  bearing  the  name  of 
the  same  official  signed  in  different  handwriting.  In 
excuse  for  his  failure  to  cover  these  points  in  the  original 
notice,  the  contestant  pleaded  betrayal  by  his  attorney 
and  the  contestee's  admission  of  enough  illegal  votes 
to  more  than  offset  his  alleged  majority.  The  majority 
report,  presented  by  Charles  F.  Crisp,  refused  the  motion 
because  it  did  not  appear  by  satisfactory  evidence  that 
the  contestant  could  prove  title  to  the  seat  even  if 
allowed  to  reopen  the  case.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
minority,  although  admitting  that  the  contestee's  affi- 
davits completely  refuted  the  specifications,  thought 
that  grave  charges  of  fraud  should  not  be  hastily  dis- 
missed on  the  mere  presentation  of  ex-parte  affidavits. 
"It  believes  that  a  reasonable  showing  having  been 
made  by  the  contestant,  he  should,  in  all  justice  and 
fair  dealing,  be  allowed  to  establish  by  legal  and  com- 
petent evidence,  if  he  can,  these  allegations  of  fraud." 
Accordingly  it  presented  a  resolution  referring  all  papers 
in  the  case  to  a  subcommittee,  with  instructions  to  in- 
vestigate carefully.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  debate  the 
resolution  was  defeated  —  yeas,  125;  nays,  132.1 

It  is  not  surprising,  perhaps,  that  Speaker  Carlisle's 
party,  in  view  of  the  long-established  custom  of  deciding 
such  questions  wholly  from  a  partisan  standpoint,  de- 
clined to  go  into  a  long,  expensive,  and  possibly  doubtful 
1  50th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  590-606,  629. 


330    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

trial.  Yet  Carlisle's  alleged  admission  of  defeat  and  of 
hundreds  of  illegal  votes,  coupled  with  a  mass  of  alleged 
forgeries  and  the  questionable  conduct  of  the  contest- 
ant's attorney,  provoked  criticism  and  aroused  a  dis- 
trust that  pained  the  Speaker's  admirers.  Had  a  federal 
judge  entered  the  district  as  soon  as  notice  of  contest 
was  filed,  an  indelible  stain  on  an  otherwise  creditable 
record  must  have  been  avoided. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

IMPEACHMENT   PROCEEDINGS 

IN  seeking  to  remove  public  officials  by  impeachment 
Congress  in  the  main  has  confined  its  efforts  to  members 
of  the  judiciary.  The  attempt  to  impeach  President 
Johnson  advertised  its  great  prerogative  and  engrossed 
its  whole  attention;  but  of  the  thirty-four  cases  which 
have  come  within  its  scrutiny  twenty-nine  were  judges 
of  United  States  courts.  This  is  not  surprising,  perhaps, 
since  other  appointive  officers  are  subject  to  dismissal 
and  members  of  Congress  to  expulsion.  Only  the  Presi- 
dent, Vice-President,  and  judges  are  inaccessible  except 
by  impeachment. 

The  Constitution  alone  governs  cases  of  impeach- 
ment. It  provides  that  "the  President,  Vice-President, 
and  all  civil  officers  of  the  United  States  shall  be  re- 
moved from  office  on  impeachment  for,  and  conviction 
of,  treason,  bribery,  and  other  high  crimes  and  mis- 
demeanors." *  It  further  provides  that  "the  House  shall 
have  the  sole  power  of  impeachment,"  and  "the  Senate 
shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments."  * 
In  other  words,  the  House  indicts  as  a  grand  jury  and 
prosecutes  as  a  district  attorney;  the  Senate  hears  and 
pronounces  judgment  as  a  court.  "No  person  shall  be 
convicted  without  the  concurrence  of  two  thirds  of  the 
members  present.  Judgment  shall  not  extend  further 
than  to  removal  from  office  and  disqualification  to  hold 
1  Art.  n,  sec.  4.  *  Art.  i,  sees.  2  and  8. 


332    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

and  enjoy  any  office  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit  under  the 
United  States;  but  the  party  convicted  shall  neverthe- 
less be  liable  and  subject  to  indictment,  trial,  judgment, 
and  punishment  according  to  law."  l  If  the  President 
be  tried,  the  Chief  Justice  presides.  At  other  trials  the 
Vice-President,  the  president  pro  tern,  or  some  senator 
chosen  for  the  purpose,  may  officiate.2 

In  the  House  impeachment  proceedings  are  set  in 
motion  by  petition,  memorial,  a  letter  of  complaint,  or 
upon  an  oral  or  written  statement  of  a  member.  The 
first  impeachment,  charging  William  Blount,  a  senator 
from  Tennessee,  with  conspiracy  to  invade  the  territory 
of  a  friendly  power,  was  based  upon  a  letter  transmitted 
to  the  House  by  President  Jefferson.  In  the  case  of 
Samuel  Chase,  an  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  John  Randolph,  of  Virginia,  rose  in  his  seat,  and, 
without  resolution  or  specific  charges,  moved  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  committee  to  consider  the  propriety  of 
impeachment.  Although  a  general  investigation  as  to 
the  execution  of  the  laws  preceded  the  impeachment  of 
President  Johnson,  the  House  finally  voted  to  investi- 
gate his  conduct  on  charges  made  by  a  single  member 
on  his  own  responsibility.  To  become  privileged  a 
proposition  to  impeach,  as  distinguished  from  one  to 
inquire,  must  be  presented;  but  the  House,  having  once 
consented  to  hear  the  matter,  disposes  of  it  as  it  sees  fit. 
If  one  House  refuses  to  impeach,  another  may  act.  In 
the  case  of  Judge  John  C.  Watrous,  of  Texas  (1852), 
three  consecutive  Houses  passed  upon  the  same  petitions 
without  result. 

1  Art.  i,  sec.  3. ,  *  Ibid. 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS        333 

Under  the  approved  practice  the  House  refers  com- 
plaints to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  which,  if  the  matter 
seem  sufficiently  serious,  appoints  a  subcommittee  to 
investigate,  with  authority  to  send  for  persons  and 
papers.  Although  respondents  in  the  earlier  days  did  not 
always  appear  at  such  inquests,  the  later  practice  in- 
vites them  to  be  present  in  person  or  by  counsel,  with 
the  privilege  of  presenting  and  examining  witnesses  and 
submitting  oral  or  written  statements.  When  heard 
in  his  own  behalf,  however,  a  respondent  is  not  obliged 
to  answer  or  produce  proof.  Rules  of  evidence  are 
ordinarily  observed,  unless  the  respondent,  as  in  the 
case  of  Judge  Blodgett,  of  Illinois  (1879),  demands  the 
most  liberal  latitude.  Of  the  thirty-four  cases  examined 
by  the  House,  twenty-five  did  not  reach  the  Senate.  Of 
these,  fifteen  disclosed  no  cause  of  action,  two  were  re- 
ferred to  other  tribunals  for  prosecution,  and  eight  re- 
spondents resigned  pending  the  investigation.  Of  the 
nine  officials  tried  by  the  Senate,  Judges  Pickering,  of 
New  Hampshire  (1803),  Humphrey,  of  Tennessee 
(1862),  and  Archbold,  of  Pennsylvania  (1913),  were 
convicted. 

Whenever  the  House  indicts  it  appoints  a  committee, 
usually  of  two  members,  to  notify  the  Senate  of  its 
action.  A  committee  is  also  appointed  to  prepare  articles 
of  impeachment.  After  their  adoption  five  or  more  mem- 
bers are  selected  by  ballot  or  designated  by  the  Speaker 
to  act  as  managers,  upon  whom  rests  the  entire  responsi- 
bility of  conducting  the  prosecution.  The  House,  if  it 
attends  the  trial,  appears  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
During  the  trial  of  Justice  Chase,  of  the  Supreme  Court 


334    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

(1804),  and  of  President  Johnson  (1868),  it  appeared 
daily  in  the  Senate.  It  also  accompanied  its  managers 
when  articles  of  impeachment  were  filed  against  Judges 
Peck,  of  Missouri  (1826),  and  Humphrey,  of  Tennessee 
(1862).  But  with  these  exceptions  it  disclosed  no  special 
interest  in  such  trials.  Nor  do  respondents  always  appear 
in  person.  At  the  time  of  their  trial  Judge  Humphrey 
served  the  Confederacy;  Judge  Pickering  was  insane; 
Senator  Blount  remained  at  his  home  in  Louisiana;  and 
President  Johnson  deemed  an  array  of  five  distinguished 
attorneys  sufficient  representation.  Justice  Chase, 
Judge  Swayne,  of  Florida  (1904),  Judge  Archbold,  of 
Pennsylvania  (1913),  and  Secretary  of  War  Belknap 
(1876)  appeared,  although  Belknap  absented  himself  on 
the  day  the  Senate  voted. 

The  Senate  is  a  tribunal  of  first  instance  and  of  last 
resort.  No  appeal  lies  from  its  decisions  and  no  prece- 
dent may  govern  its  action.  In  preparation  for  the  event 
senators  take  the  oath,1  prescribe  ceremonies,  originate 
forms,  adopt  rules,  and,  at  an  appointed  day  and  hour, 
receive  the  House  managers,  who  read  and  file  the  arti- 
cles of  impeachment,  duly  signed  by  the  Speaker  and 
attested  by  the  clerk.  The  Senate  also  issues  a  writ  of 
summons  to  the  respondent  and  fixes  the  time  for  filing 
his  answer.  In  conjunction  with  the  House  managers  a 
day  is  agreed  upon  for  beginning  the  proceedings,  when, 
if  the  respondent  fails  to  appear  in  person  or  by  counsel, 
the  trial  proceeds  as  on  a  plea  of  not  guilty. 

1  The  oath  is  ordinarily  administered  to  the  secretary  of  the  Senate 
by  some  qualified  official,  who  administers  it  to  the  presiding  officer, 
who  in  turn  administers  it  to  the  senators. 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS        335 

At  the  suggestion  of  Vice-President  Burr  the  Senate 
made  elaborate  preparations  for  the  trial  of  Samuel 
Chase,  an  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
Senators  sat  on  crimson  benches  arranged  on  either  side 
and  in  line  with  the  Vice-President;  boxes  were  assigned 
to  managers  and  respondent's  counsel  on  the  right  and 
left  of  the  Chair;  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  reserved  for 
members  of  the  House,  was  flanked  with  boxes,  set  apart 
for  foreign  representatives  and  officers  of  the  army  and 
navy;  while  above  a  temporary  platform,  handsomely  fur- 
nished, provided  room  for  ladies,  those  of  distinguished 
families  finding  accommodations  in  boxes  at  either  end. 
Only  doors  of  the  permanent  gallery  opened  to  all  com- 
ers. Over  this  brilliant  array  stood  the  marshal  of  the 
District  of  Columbia  as  the  preserver  of  order.  This 
arrangement,  affecting  the  scene  in  the  great  hall  of 
Rufus  at  the  impeachment  of  Warren  Hastings,  created 
a  mad  rush  for  seats,  which  seriously  disturbed  the  pro- 
ceedings, and  early  in  the  trial  the  spectacular  became 
impracticable.  Finally,  when  the  respondent,  then  an 
old  man,  a  father  of  the  Republic,  and  second  in  ability 
to  none  in  the  chamber,  received  a  triumphant  acquittal, 
the  crimson  benches  disappeared  with  the  violent  party 
spirit  that  initiated  the  proceedings.  Nevertheless,  the 
House  retained  its  pompous  title  of  "  the  great  inquest  of 
the  nation,"  while  the  Senate  remained  a  "high  court  of 
impeachment." 

Preliminary  to  the  trial  of  President  Johnson,  the 
Senate,  perhaps  fearing  the  influence  of  Chief  Justice 
Chase,  manifested  a  disposition  to  rid  itself  of  the  char- 
acter of  a  judicial  body.  The  claim  that  the  ordinary  re- 


336    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

strictions  of  judicial  process  had  no  more  application 
than  the  guarantees  accorded  to  the  accused  in  jury 
trials  was  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  no  right  existed 
to  challenge  a  member  of  the  Senate  for  any  cause,  or  to 
appeal  to  any  court,  or  to  any  law  save  the  Constitution. 
Others  argued  that  the  presence  of  the  Chief  Justice 
fixed  its  status  as  a  court.  Moreover,  the  Constitution, 
by  empowering  the  Senate  to  "try"  impeachments,  con- 
templated the  form  of  a  judicial  action.  The  peculiar 
character  of  the  oath  administered  to  senators,  as  well 
as  an  adherence  to  the  technical  terminology  of  the  law 
in  the  use  of  the  words  "conviction"  and  "judgment," 
contributed  to  this  conclusion.  Precedent,  too,  had  es- 
tablished its  judicial  character.  The  Senate,  however, 
decided  that  it  sat  as  a  "constitutional  tribunal,"  con- 
vened "to  inquire  into  and  determine  whether  Andrew 
Johnson,  because  of  malversation  in  office,  is  longer  fit 
to  retain  the  office  of  President,  or  hereafter  to  hold  any 
office  of  honor  or  profit."  l 

Having  settled  its  status  the  Senate  declined  to  require 
the  Chief  Justice  to  be  sworn.  It  also  questioned  his 
right  to  decide  on  the  admissibility  of  evidence.  Some 
maintained  that  he  acted  not  as  a  presiding  judge,  but 
simply  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Senate.  He  could  decide 
nothing.  No  one  not  a  senator  could  take  any  part  in 
the  trial  save  as  a  ministerial  agent.  This  view  did  not 
satisfy  the  more  conservative,  and  by  a  vote  of  31  to  19 
the  Chief  Justice  received  permission  not  only  to  decide 
all  questions  of  law  and  evidence,  subject  to  appeal  if 
any  senator  demanded  a  roll-call,  but  to  give  the  casting 

1  Report  of  Trial,  p.  30. 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS        337 

vote  in  case  of  a  tie.  It  emphasized  the  judicial  character 
of  the  body,  too,  when  the  Chief  Justice,  arrayed  in  his 
robe,  appeared  at  the  door  of  the  Senate,  attended  by  an 
Associate  Justice,  who  subsequently  administered  the 
oath  to  him. 

In  the  trial  of  impeachment  cases  it  was  very  early 
contended  that  the  rigid  rules  of  evidence  which  gov- 
erned the  practice  of  courts  of  law  did  not  apply.  Wil- 
liam Wirt,  in  the  Peck  case,  quoting  the  Federalist  in 
support  of  the  proposition,  argued  that  proceedings  in 
the  Senate  should  at  least  be  conducted  as  liberally  as 
in  courts  conversant  with  the  civil  law.  In  general,  how- 
ever, the  rules  of  evidence  governing  inferior  or  nisi 
prius  courts  have  been  recognized.  Thus,  witnesses 
are  required  to  state  facts  instead  of  opinions,  and  to 
present  the  best  evidence  procurable.  Conversations 
with  third  parties,  not  in  the  presence  of  the  respondent, 
are  ordinarily  excluded  as  well  as  cumulative  testimony 
as  to  the  respondent's  intent,  although  the  respondent's 
declarations  of  intent,  made  at  the  time  of  the  act,  are 
admissible. 

Questions  of  jurisdiction  have  also  perplexed  Con- 
gress. Pending  the  preparation  of  articles  of  impeach- 
ment in  the  case  of  William  Blount  the  Senate  expelled 
him.  Thereupon  counsel  raised  the  inquiry  whether  he 
could  be  punished  a  second  time  by  impeachment.  He 
did  not  contend,  counsel  said,  that  an  officer  could  avoid 
impeachment  by  resigning,  but  denied  that  the  respon- 
dent could  be  tried  and  disqualified  for  the  same  offense 
for  which  he  was  expelled.  Thereupon  the  Senate,  by  a 
vote  of  14  to  11,  declared  that  "the  court  is  of  opinion 


338    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

that  the  matter  alleged  in  the  plea  of  defendant  is  suffi- 
cient in  law  to  show  that  this  court  ought  not  to  hold 
jurisdiction  of  the  said  impeachment,  and  that  it  is  dis- 
missed." l  The  case  of  Schuyler  Colfax,  growing  out  of 
the  Credit  Mobilier  scandal  in  1873,  presented  the  ques- 
tion whether  a  Vice-President  could  be  impeached  for  a 
wrongful  act  committed  while  Speaker  of  the  House. 
The  Judiciary  Committee  held  it  material  to  allege  that 
the  accused  still  exercised  the  duties  of  the  office  in 
which  the  wrong  occurred.2  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of 
Massachusetts,  John  A.  Bingham,  of  Ohio,  John  A. 
Peters,  of  Maine,  and  other  admittedly  able  lawyers  con- 
curred in  this  report.  Clarkson  N.  Potter,  of  New  York, 
dissented.  The  House  took  no  further  action  presum- 
ably for  the  reason  that  Colfax  in  a  day  or  two  would 
retire.  When  Edward  H.  Durrell,  District  Judge  of 
Louisiana,  resigned  pending  investigation  (1874),  Butler 
thought  the  proceeding  might  go  on  for  the  purpose  of 
disqualification,  but  he  doubted  its  propriety  because  of 
Durrell's  advanced  age.  Thereupon  the  House,  by  a 
strict  party  vote,  laid  the  resolution  of  impeachment  on 
the  table  —  yeas,  129;  nays,  69. 3  Similar  disposition  was 
made  of  the  case  of  Richard  Busteed,  District  Judge  of 
Alabama,  who  resigned  pending  impeachment  proceed- 
ings.4 

The  case  of  Secretary  Belknap  presented  the  same 
question.  Belknap  resigned  as  soon  as  an  investigation 
exposed  his  crime,  and  when  the  cause  reached  the  Senate 

1  Annals,  pp.  2318-19. 

8  42d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  324-26. 

»  43d  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  319-24.        «  Ibid. 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS        339 

his  counsel  held  that  the  Constitution  contemplated 
impeachment  and  removal  of  a  civil  "officer"  only  while 
he  held  the  office,  the  sole  purpose  being  promptly  to 
arrest  his  power  to  do  wrong.  "  When  an  officer  resigns 
and  becomes  a  private  citizen,  is  he  still  an  officer?" 
counsel  asked  facetiously.  "Who  is  the  President?  An 
ex-President?  When  we  speak  of  the  President  do  we 
refer  to  anybody  except  the  incumbent  of  that  office? 
The  Constitution  declares  that  when  a  President  is  im- 
peached, the  Chief  Justice  shall  preside.  Who  would 
preside  if  an  ex-President  was  impeached?  An  ex-Chief 
Justice?  This  puzzle  arises  out  of  the  absurdity  of  im- 
peaching an  ex-President!  The  Constitution  says,  also, 
that  upon  conviction  the  President  and  all  other  civil 
officers  shall  be  removed.  How  can  a  man  be  removed 
who  holds  no  office?  And  if  removed,  how  can  the  sen- 
tence be  made  effectual  except  by  disqualification? 
Although  the  President  cannot  pardon  the  convicted 
offender,  he  may  reinstate  him  the  next  morning.  To 
prevent  this  was  the  object  of  the  disqualification  clause. 
Removal  and  disqualification  cannot  be  separated.  You 
cannot  remove  without  disqualifying  and  you  cannot  dis- 
qualify without  removal,  because  the  Constitution  re- 
quires the  Senate  to  pronounce  a  judgment  of  removal 
and  disqualification  —  not  removal  or  disqualification." l 
George  F.  Hoar,  of  Massachusetts,  a  House  manager, 
declared  that  English  precedents  and  the  history  of  the 
Constitution  pointed  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  power  of  the  Senate  over  official  wrongdoers  to  in- 
terpose by  its  judgment  a  perpetual  barrier  against  their 
1  44th  Cong.,  1st  Seas.,  Record  of  Trial,  pp.  70-74. 


340    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

return  to  office  does  not  depend  upon  the  consent  of  the 
culprit,  or  the  accidental  discovery  of  the  crime  before 
his  term  of  office  has  expired.  It  is  a  perpetual  power, 
hanging  over  the  guilty  officer  during  his  life.  The 
history  of  the  formation  of  the  Constitution,  he  con- 
tinued, shows  that  the  clause  making  civil  officers  re- 
movable on  conviction  is  there  as  an  exception  to  clauses 
which  had  previously  determined  the  tenure  of  those 
offices.  The  power  of  impeachment  is  not  defined  in  the 
grant  in  the  Constitution.  It  is  conferred  as  a  general 
common-law  power.  No  limit  of  its  application  to  per- 
sons is  inserted  in  the  grant.  But  removal  by  impeach- 
ment is  inserted  as  a  subsequent  limitation  on  the  tenure 
of  office  to  guard  against  the  argument  that  officers, 
whose  term  is  fixed  in  the  Constitution,  cannot  be 
removed  under  the  power  of  impeachment,  just  as  im- 
peachment is  excepted  in  the  clause  securing  the  right 
of  trial  by  jury  and  in  the  clause  conferring  the  power  of 
pardon.  But  suppose  the  phrase  "all  civil  officers  "  was 
inserted  as  a  definition  of  the  persons  who  may  be 
reached  by  this  process,  does  it  apply  to  them  at  the 
time  the  offense  is  committed  or  at  the  time  of  the 
punishment?  If  a  statute  enact  that  all  wrongdoers 
may  be  punished,  it  is  clear  that  liability  to  punish- 
ment attaches  when  the  act  is  committed.  The  whole 
constitutional  provision  can  be  summed  up  in  two  sen- 
tences which  precisely  state  the  contention.  The  man- 
agers claim  that  the  Constitution  in  substance  says  that 
"the  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  impeach- 
ments, and  civil  officers  shall  be  removed  on  conviction." 
Counsel  for  defendant  put  it  that  "judgment  in  case  of 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS        341 

conviction  shall  be  removal  from  office  and  disqualifica- 
tion, if  the  defendant  is  willing.  If  unwilling,  he  re- 
signs. " l 

Over  this  question  the  Senate  deliberated  in  secret 
session  for  two  weeks  and  finally,  by  a  vote  of  37  to  29, 
held  the  respondent  amenable  to  trial.  Among  those 
voting  "yea"  were  George  F.  Edmunds,  of  Vermont, 
Allen  G.  Thurman,  of  Ohio,  Joseph  E.  McDonald,  of 
Indiana,  James  A.  Bayard,  of  Delaware,  John  Sherman, 
of  Ohio,  Justin  S.  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  Henry  L.  Dawes, 
of  Massachusetts,  and  Francis  Kernan,  of  New  York; 
while  Oliver  P.  Morton,  of  Indiana,  Richard  J.  Oglesby, 
of  Illinois,  William  B.  Allison,  of  Iowa,  John  J.  Ingalls,  of 
Kansas,  Lot  M.  Morrill,  of  Maine,  George  S.  Boutwell, 
of  Massachusetts,  William  Windom,  of  Minnesota,  and 
Roscoe  Conkling,  of  New  York,  voted  "no."  It  was  a 
division  of  notable  men  of  acknowledged  gifts,  whose 
sincerity  was  voiced  by  the  final  roll-call,  those  holding 
"want  of  jurisdiction"  generally  voting  "not  guilty." 
This  reduced  the  affirmative  vote  below  the  required 
two  thirds,  thus  practically  amounting  to  an  acquittal, 
although  Belknap's  guilt  was  admitted.  In  reporting 
the  result,  the  House  managers /declared  that  the  trial 
had  at  least  settled  the  question  "  that  persons  who  have 
held  office  are  impeachable."  2 

At  the  trial  of  Robert  W.  Archbold  in  1913  the  ques- 
tion again  arose.  Archbold  served  as  judge  of  the 
Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania  from  1901  to  1911, 
after  which  he  became  a  circuit  judge  and  a  member  of 

1  44th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record  of  Trial,  p.  57. 

2  Record  of  Trial,  p.  357. 


342    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

the  Court  of  Commerce.  Impeachment  articles  1  to  6 
related  to  offenses  committed  as  circuit  judge  and 
article  7  to  12  as  district  judge,  while  article  13  in- 
cluded acts  of  misconduct  while  district  as  well  as  cir- 
cuit judge.  In  its  decision  the  Senate  convicted  for 
crimes  committed  as  circuit  judge  and  acquitted  for 
alleged  misconduct  as  district  judge,  several  senators 
holding  that  the  Senate  was  without  jurisdiction  of  such 
misconduct.  On  the  thirteenth  article  nearly  one  third 
answered  "not  guilty,"  notwithstanding  "the  charge 
contained  was  sustained  by  wrongful  acts  committed 
while  holding  the  office  of  circuit  judge."  1  In  view  of 
this  vote  it  cannot  yet  be  affirmed  with  certainty  that 
persons  who  are  not  in  office  can  be  impeached  for 
misconduct  committed  while  in  office,  although  the 
Archbold  case  settled  the  practice  that  in  pronouncing 
sentence  after  conviction  the  Senate  may  remove  and 
disqualify,  or  remove  without  disqualifying. 

What  constitute  "other  high  crimes  and  misdemean- 
ors" has  been  a  more  perplexing  question.  These  words 
were  copied  into  the  Constitution  from  British  constitu- 
tional and  parliamentary  law,  and  for  more  than  a  cen- 
tury eminent  authorities  have  differed  as  to  what  offenses 
are  subject  to  impeachment.  One  theory  is  that  the  Con- 
stitution adopted  the  English  system  of  impeachment 
only  as  a  mode  of  procedure,  and  that  no  offense  is  im- 
peachable  which  is  not  subject  to  indictment  under  a 
statute  of  the  United  States  or  the  common  law.  Thus, 
counsel  in  the  Chase  case  (1804)  held  that  "other  high 
crimes  and  misdemeanors"  meant  offenses  which  are 
2  Record  of  Trial,  p.  1675. 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS         343 

violations  of  law,  exposing  the  violaters  to  punishment, 
these  terms  being  synonymous,  except  that  "crimes" 
\  refer  to  felonies,  while  "misdemeanors"  include  lesser 
offenses;  but  that  in  order  to  prevent  impeachment  for 
petty  crimes,  the  Constitution  limits  them  to  "high  mis- 
demeanors." Moreover,  misdemeanor  is  a  legal  and 
technical  term,  well  understood  and  defined  in  law  as 
an  act  committed  or  omitted  in  violation  of  a  public  law, 
and  when  interpreted  in  connection  with  "treason,  brib- 
ery, and  other  high  crimes,"  to  be  tried  in  the  same 
manner  and  subject  to  the  same  penalties,  it  becomes 
something  vastly  more  than  an  alleged  breach  of  legal 
ethics.  The  House,  counsel  continued,  cannot  make  an 
act  impeachable  at  its  will  or  pleasure;  otherwise  public 
officials  must  be  the  tools  or  the  victims  of  the  victorious 
party.  Nor  is  the  Senate  to  become  a  court  of  honor  to 
punish  breaches  of  politeness  or  to  mark  the  precincts  of 
judicial  decorum.  A  respondent  must  be  judged  by  some 
known  law  of  the  country,  and  the  only  offense  described 
by  the  Constitution  is  the  violation  of  some  statute  of 
the  United  States,  or  of  a  State,  or  of  a  provision  of 
the  common  law.  In  the  exercise  of  its  power,  therefore, 
Congress  must  be  governed  by  the  rules  that  limit  the 
action  of  courts  or  grand  juries,  and  if  no  law  is  violated, 
the  House  cannot  impeach  or  the  Senate  convict. 

In  the  first  attempt  of  the  House  to  impeach  President 
Johnson  (1867),  the  chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, James  F.  Wilson,  of  Iowa,  declared  that  it  could 
not  be  presumed  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
after  indicating  such  offenses  as  treason  and  bribery,  in- 
tended to  remove  all  further  restraint  by  using  the  words 


344    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

"other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,"  thus  allowing 
the  House  to  impeach  for  any  conduct  which  the  whims, 
caprices,  and  passions  of  a  majority  might  magnify  into 
crimes.  Wilson  not  only  adopted  the  argument  pre- 
sented in  the  Chase  case,  holding  these  words  to  mean 
indictable  offenses,  but  he  contended  that  impeachment 
must  follow  the  doctrine  of  the  Supreme  Court,  that  the 
Federal  Government,  having  no  jurisdiction  of  offenses  at 
common  law,  can  exercise  no  criminal  jurisdiction  which 
is  not  given  by  statute,  since  courts  which  are  created  by 
written  law  and  whose  jurisdiction  is  defined  by  written 
law,  cannot  transcend  that  jurisdiction.1  In  other  words, 
no  offense  is  impeachable  which  Congress  has  not  made 
so  by  statute.  To  the  suggestion  that  this  was  narrower 
than  the  limitation  contended  for  in  the  Chase  case, 
Wilson  replied  that  the  doctrine  cited  had  not  then  been 
laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court.2 

In  the  trial  of  President  Johnson  the  able  counsel  for 
respondent  adopted  this  argument,  holding  that  im- 
peachable offenses  are  "only  high  criminal  offenses 
against  the  United  States,  made  so  by  some  law  of  the 
United  States  existing  when  the  acts  complained  of  were 
done."  3  In  the  Swayne  case  (1904),  Marlin  E.  Olmsted, 
of  Pennsylvania,  a  House  manager,  declared  that  such 
limitation  renders  the  constitutional  provision  practi- 
cally a  nullity,  since  Congress  has  defined  by  statute 
comparatively  few  offenses.  Even  murder,  he  said,  is  not 

1  United  States  vs.  Hudson  and  Goodwin,  7  Cranch,  32;  United 
States  vs.  Coolidge  et  al.,  1  Wheaton,  415;  Ex  parte  Ballman  and 
Swartwout,  4  Cranch,  95;  United  States  vs.  Lancaster,  2  McLeans  R., 
433. 

2  40th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Rep.  no.  7.  *  Ibid. 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS        345 

defined  by  any  act  of  Congress.  To  which  reply  was 
made  that  every  difficulty  may  be  easily  surmounted  by 
appropriate  legislation.  "What  right  has  the  House  and 
Senate  to  sleep  on  their  undisputed  legislative  powers," 
asked  James  F.  Wilson  in  the  Johnson  case,  "and  then 
resort  to  the  common  law  of  England  for  the  punishment 
of  civil  officers,  when  no  civil  court  of  the  United  States 
can  punish  a  citizen  or  foreigner  for  any  crime  except  it 
be  first  prescribed  by  an  act  of  Congress?"  l 

Another  theory  represents  impeachment  as  not  a  mere 
procedure  for  the  punishment  of  indictable  crime,  but 
that  the  phrase  "high  crimes  and  misdemeanors"  is  to  be 
taken  in  a  much  broader  sense  and  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  parliamentary  usage,  so  as  to  include  grave 
political  offenses,  maladministration,  arbitrary  and  op- 
pressive conduct,  and  even  gross  improprieties.  Thus, 
in  the  trial  of  Justice  Chase  (1804)  the  House  managers 
asserted  that  as  "good  behavior"  limits  a  judge's  term  of 
service,  he  is  liable  to  removal  for  "misbehavior,"  such 
as  delivering  an  opinion  on  the  law  before  counsel  is 
heard,  or  making  political  harangues  from  the  bench,  or 
impeding  important  business  by  unnecessarily  adjourn- 
ing court,  or  ordering  a  defendant  to  trial  when  good 
grounds  are  presented  for  postponement,  or  making  a 
decree  not  sanctioned  by  law,  or  delivering  opinions  un- 
warranted by  precedent,  principle,  or  legislative  act, 
even  though  he  do  not  violate  positive  law,  provided 
senators  are  convinced,  from  a  concurrence  of  circum- 
stances, that  he  erred  through  design  even  if  not  cor- 
rupted by  a  bribe.  The  managers  admitted  that  "mis- 
•  l  40th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Rep.  no.  7. 


346    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

demeanor"  in  a  court  of  law  meant  an  offense  against  a 
statute,  but  before  the  Senate,  charged  with  the  sole 
power  of  removal,  it  refers  to  official  misconduct  whether 
against  a  positive  law  or  unwarranted  by  law. 

In  the  case  of  James  H.  Peck  (1830),  the  managers 
maintained  that  any  official  act  committed  or  omitted 
by  a  judge  which  violated  "good  behavior"  became  an 
impeachable  offense.  So,  preceding  the  formal  impeach- 
ment of  President  Johnson,  George  S.  Boutwell,  of 
Massachusetts,  representing  the  majority  of  the  Judici- 
ary Committee,  argued  that  "high  crimes  and  mis- 
demeanors" include  all  cases  of  misbehavior  whether 
known  to  statute  law  or  not,  the  object  of  impeachment 
being  to  remove  an  official  whose  moral  delinquency  an 
ordinary  tribunal  is  inadequate  to  reach.  A  President, 
he  said,  may  ignore  the  law  or  impeach  the  power  of 
Congress  by  nullifying  its  acts  or  denying  their  author- 
ity, thus  being  guilty  of  offenses  calculated  to  subvert 
the  Government  without  being  liable  to  indictment. 

The  House,  in  formulating  articles  of  impeachment, 
has  included  indictable  and  non-indictable  offenses. 
Even  in  the  Johnson  case,  after  it  had  charged  specific 
violations  of  the  Tenure-of -Office  Act,  the  Reconstruc- 
tion and  Conspiracy  Acts,  the  Appropriation  Act  of 
March  2,  1867,  and  the  Constitution,  it  interjected 
article  10,  charging  the  President  with  bringing  the 
office  into  contempt  by  his  speeches  at  Cleveland  and 
St.  Louis  during  the  "swing  around  the  circle"  in  1866. 
While  the  practice  of  the  House,  therefore,  is  unsettled, 
the  judgments  of  the  Senate  have  established  the  rule 
that  convictions  must  be  limited  at  least  to  acts  having 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS        347 

the  character  of  a  crime.  The  Chase  and  Peck  and 
Swayne  cases  enunciate  this  principle.  In  the  Johnson 
impeachment  it  happened  that  the  Senate  did  not  vote 
upon  article  10,  but  of  the  twenty-two  senators  who  sub- 
sequently filed  statements,  seventeen  declared  that  the 
charge  did  not  amount  to  official  misconduct.  Senator 
Ferry,  of  Michigan,  who  voted  "guilty"  on  other  arti- 
cles, thought  the  speeches  vain,  foolish,  vulgar,  and  un- 
becoming, "but  the  Constitution  does  not  provide  that 
a  President  may  be  impeached  for  these  qualities."  1 

While  senators  have  generally  agreed  that  the  viola- 
tion of  a  statute  constitutes  ample  ground  for  convic- 
tion, the  seven  recusant  Republicans  in  the  Johnson  case 
denied  that  the  President  had  violated  any  statute. 
Senator  Trumbull,  of  Illinois,  declared  that  the  Tenure- 
of -Office  Act  did  not  forbid  the  removal  of  Secretary 
Stanton  or  the  ad-interim  appointment  of  General 
Thomas.  Nor  did  the  record  contain,  he  said,  "a  parti- 
cle of  evidence"  of  the  violation  of  the  other  acts  cited. 
"  If  the  question  was,  Is  Andrew  Johnson  a  fit  person  for 
President?  I  should  answer,  no!  His  speeches  and  the 
general  course  of  his  administration  have  been  as  dis- 
tasteful to  me  as  to  any  one.  But  to  convict  or  to  depose 
a  Chief  Magistrate  when  guilt  is  not  made  palpable  by 
the  record  would  be  fraught  with  far  greater  harm  to  the 
future  of  the  country  than  can  arise  from  having  him  in 
office."  2 

Cases  considered  with  a  view  to  impeachment  have 
too  often  disclosed  partisan  or  personal  bias.  Hildreth, 

1  40th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Report  of  Trial,  p.  451. 

2  40th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  Supplement,  p.  420. 


348    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

the  historian, declared  the  Chase  case  "without  sufficient 
foundation  in  fact  or  in  law."  l  Adams  pronounced  it 
"a  party  prosecution."  The  Pickering  impeachment  be- 
longs in  the  same  category.  Pickering's  habits  unfitted 
him  to  perform  his  duties,  but  the  disregard  of  testimony 
proving  insanity  illuminated  the  animus  of  the  proceed- 
ing. Fearful  of  its  influence  the  majority  wickedly  sub- 
stituted the  question,  "Is  the  respondent  guilty  as 
charged?"  for  the  constitutional  form," Is  the  respond- 
ent guilty  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  as  charged?  " 
An  insane  man's  acts  could  not  amount  to  "  high  crimes 
and  misdemeanors,"  and  to  avoid  the  scruples  of  sena- 
tors the  incriminating  words  were  omitted.  Under  the 
modern  practice  Congress  retires  such  a  sufferer  without 
reproach  by  creating  an  additional  judge,  with  the 
proviso  that  no  successor  to  the  existing  incumbent  be 
appointed. 

Having  convicted  Pickering,  Randolph  immediately 
preferred  charges  against  Samuel  Chase,  of  Maryland. 
Of  ardent  passions,  strong  mind,  and  dominating  temper, 
Chase's  life  had  been  turbulent  and  boisterous.  He  had 
signed  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  for  his  dis- 
tinguished service  in  Congress,  especially  during  the 
early  period  of  the  Revolution,  President  Washington 
appointed  him  to  the  Supreme  Court.  On  his  circuit, 
which  included  Maryland  and  Virginia,  he  did  not  cease 
his  patriotic  activities.  Randolph  and  William  B.  Giles, 
of  Virginia,  had  long  desired  his  removal,  and  when  the 
latter  occupied  a  seat  in  the  Senate,  the  twain  conspired. 
While  the  former,  as  prosecutor,  prepared  articles  of  im- 
1  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  v,  p.  254.  j 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS        349 

peachment,  the  latter,  as  a  judge,  formulated  rules  for 
the  government  of  the  Senate.  They  declared  it  the  duty 
of  the  House  to  impeach,  and  the  right  of  the  Senate  to 
remove,  any  judge  who  held  an  act  of  Congress  unconsti- 
tutional, or  sent  a  mandamus  to  the  Secretary  of  State.1 
To  carry  his  point,  Giles  endeavored  to  frame  rules  of 
procedure  absolving  the  Senate  from  recognizing  princi- 
ples that  restrain  and  bind  courts  of  justice.  But  several 
influences,  notably  the  President's  fear  of  Randolph's 
increasing  power,  compelled  the  majority  to  present  the 
judgment  question  in  its  constitutional  form,  so  that 
of  the  twenty-five  Republican  senators  who  voted,  six 
answered,  "Not  guilty,"  a  sufficient  number  to  acquit. 
Adams,  who  happened  at  the  time  to  be  a  member  of 
the  Senate,  affirms  that  the  six  followed  Jefferson's 
directions.2 

Judge  Peck's  impeachment  was  practically  a  party 
proceeding.  Peck  disbarred  and  committed  a  St.  Louis 
barrister  for  contempt  for  publishing  an  article  criticising 
the  court's  decree  touching  certain  land  titles.  Although 
this  action  seemed  high-handed,  the  House  refused  to 
prosecute  until  James  Buchanan  became  chairman  of 
the  Judiciary  Committee.  Buchanan  was  an  impressive 
advocate,  acquainted  with  all  the  arts  that  contribute  to 
popularity,  and  he  used  the  case  as  a  stepping-stone  to 
party  preferment.  He  needed  rehabilitation.  Within 
ten  years  he  had  left  the  Federalists,  joined  the  Demo- 
crats, and  quarreled  with  President  Jackson.  It  added 
to  the  interest  of  the  trial  that  he  was  opposed  by 

1  John  Quincy  Adams,  Diary,  vol.  i,  pp.  321,  323. 
8  Diary,  vol.  I,  p.  372;  vol.  vin,  p.  306. 


350    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

William  Wirt,  then  at  the  height  of  his  fame,  who  ap- 
peared as  the  respondent's  counsel. 

The  case  turned  on  the  point  whether  guilty  intention 
must  be  established  by  proof.  Buchanan  claimed  that  if 
the  commission  of  an  unlawful  act  be  proved,  guilty  in- 
tention followed  as  a  necessary  implication  of  law.  Wirt 
declared  that  whatever  it  is  material  to  charge  it  is 
material  to  prove.  If  the  respondent  knew  the  attorney's 
act  was  not  a  contempt  and  still  punished  it  as  one,  it 
would  be  an  intentional  violation  of  law  and  an  im- 
peachable  offense;  but  the  intent  must  be  proved,  other- 
wise every  mistake  of  law  or  error  of  judgment  on  the 
part  of  a  judge  would  become  a  crime  or  civil  injury  for 
which  he  would  be  personally  responsible.  "I  have  ex- 
amined the  various  cases  of  impeachment  of  judges  both 
in  England  and  in  the  United  States,"  said  the  distin- 
guished counsel,  "and  I  have  not  heretofore  observed 
that  any  counsel,  even  under  the  severest  stress  of  evi- 
dence, has  taken  refuge  in  so  bold  a  proposition  as  that 
error  of  judgment  is  an  impeachable  offense."  1 

It  is  not  unlikely  that  Buchanan  relied  more  upon  the 
partisanship  of  thirty-eight  Democratic  senators  than 
upon  the  strength  of  his  proof,  but  when  the  vote  of 
twenty-one  to  twenty-two  for  acquittal  was  announced, 
Adams  inferred  that  Buchanan  miscalculated  the  influ- 
ence of  the  President.  "Jackson's  aversion  to  him," 
wrote  Adams,  "arises  from  a  dirty  intrigue  to  sacrifice 
me  by  purchasing  Clay,  which  Buchanan  disclosed, 
seemingly  unconscious  of  moral  turpitude  in  the 
avowal,  and  with  a  dullness  of  intellect  equally  un- 
1  21st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Report  of  Trial,  pp.  485-97. 


IMPEACHMENT  PROCEEDINGS        351 

conscious  of  the  javelin  he  was  thrusting  into  Jackson's 
side."1 

The  display  of  party  feeling  in  the  impeachment  of 
President  Johnson  surpassed,  if  possible,  the  rancor  ex- 
hibited in  the  trial  of  Justice  Chase.  At  times  the 
Senate  Chamber  disclosed  the  deep,  earnest  activity  of 
a  national  party  convention.  Butler  and  Boutwell,  to 
whom  the  President  was  a  "monstrous  malefactor," 
played  the  part  of  John  Randolph,  while  Sumner,  who 
spoke  of  Johnson  as  the  "enormous  criminal  of  his  age," 
displayed  the  hostility  of  William  B.  Giles.  Sumner 
thought  impeachment  a  political  and  not  a  judicial  pro- 
ceeding, since  the  Constitution  gave  the  Senate  sole 
power  to  try.  In  his  opinion  the  Senate  was  not  con- 
fined to  the  "rigid  rules  of  common  law,"  because  "its 
rules,  unknown  to  ordinary  courts,"  reverse  the  rule  giv- 
ing the  accused  the  benefit  of  the  doubt.  "  If  on  any  point 
you  entertain  doubts,"  he  said,  "the  benefit  of  those 
doubts  must  be  given  to  your  country.  This  is  the  su- 
preme law." 2  He  argued,  also,  that  in  order  to  avoid 
delay  all  testimony  not  trivial  should  be  received,  yet  he 
refused  to  vote  when  the  respondent  offered  to  prove 
that  several  cabinet  members  advised  him  of  the  uncon- 
stitutionality  of  the  Tenure-of-Office  Act,  although  the 
Chief  Justice  held  such  an  offer  admissible  on  the  ques- 
tion of  intent.  Other  Republican  leaders  were  not  more 
punctilious. 

After  submission  of  the  case  a  system  of  coercion 
existed  to  bring  doubtful  senators  into  line.  Letters 

1  Diary,  vol.  vm,  p.  307. 

3  40th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Report  of  Trial,  pp.  473-80. 


352    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

threatened,  the  press  criticized,  and  colleagues  censured. 
Nevertheless,  the  resistance  of  the  seven  recusant  Re- 
publicans set  an  admirable  example  to  their  successors. 
"The  glory  of  the  trial,"  says  Rhodes,  "was  the  action 
of  these  seven  senators.  Only  after  great  inward  trouble 
could  they  come  to  then*  determination.  It  was  so  easy 
to  go  the  other  way,  to  agree  with  the  thirty-five,  most 
of  whom  were  honest  men  and  some  of  whom  were  able 
lawyers,  who  interpreted  the  evidence  and  the  law  in 
favor  of  conviction.  The  average  senator  who  hesitated 
finally  gave  his  voice  with  the  majority,  but  these  seven 
in  conscientiousness  and  delicacy  of  moral  fiber  were 
above  any  average,  and  hi  refusing  to  sacrifice  their  ideas 
of  justice  to  a  popular  demand,  which  in  this  case  was 
neither  insincere  nor  unenlightened,  they  showed  a  de- 
gree of  courage  than  which  we  know  no  higher.  Hard 
as  was  their  immediate  future  they  have  received  their 
meed  from  posterity,  their  monument  in  the  admiring 
tribute  of  all  who  know  how  firm  they  stood  in  an 
hour  of  supreme  trial."  l 

1  History  of  the  Untied  States,  vol.  vi,  p.  156. 


CHAPTER  XVHI 

THE   PRESIDENT   AND   THE  HOUSE 

THE  Senate  and  the  House,  for  the  purpose  of  count-  . 
ing  the  electoral  vote  for  President,  meet  in  joint  session 
on  the  second  Wednesday  hi  February  succeeding  the 
election  hi  November.  The  presiding  officer  of  the 
Senate,  who  receives  the  returns  from  the  governors  of 
the  several  States,  opens  and  hands  them  to  the  tellers 
to  be  read  and  tabulated,  after  which  he  announces  the 
result.  During  this  joint  session  no  debate  is  allowed, 
but  if  the  two  Houses  disagree  as  to  the  counting  of  any 
vote,  they  separate,  each  body  being  allowed  two  hours 
for  debate.  No  recess  can  continue  after  ten  o'clock  of 
the  next  calendar  day,  Sunday  excepted,  and  if  the 
count  be  not  concluded  before  the  fifth  calendar  day 
further  recessing  is  disallowed. 

The  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes,  if  it 
be  a  majority  of  the  electors  appointed,  becomes  the 
President;  otherwise  the  House  withdraws  and  imme- 
diately proceeds  to  choose  by  ballot  from  the  three 
persons  having  the  highest  number,  each  State  being 
allowed  one  vote.  A  quorum  consists  of  two  thirds  of 
all  the  States,  a  majority  being  necessary  to  a  choice.  In 
1801,  when  the  electoral  count  disclosed  no  choice  for 
President,  the  House,  after  returning  to  its  own  chamber 
and  excluding  every  one  except  its  officers,  adopted  rules 
to  continue  in  session  without  adjournment  or  inter- 


354    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

ruption  by  other  business  until  a  choice  was  made,  all 
questions  to  be  decided  by  States  without  debate.  When 
each  State  had  ascertained  its  choice  by  ballot,  the  name 
of  its  candidate,  or,  if  equally  divided,  the  word  "di- 
vided," was  written  on  duplicate  ballots  and  deposited 
in  different  boxes,  the  ballots  in  each  being  counted  by 
different  tellers  appointed  from  each  State.  When  the 
balloting,  which  lasted  with  postponements  for  several 
days,  finally  gave  Thomas  Jefferson  a  majority,  the 
Speaker  announced  his  election  and  immediately  noti- 
fied the  President  and  the  Senate.  The  proceeding  in 
1825,  resulting  in  the  election  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  in 
no  wise  materially  differed  except  that  the  rules  ad- 
mitted members  of  the  Senate.  If  the  House  makes  no 
choice  before  the  4th  of  March,  the  Vice-President  be- 
comes President.1 

On  March  4,  or,  if  it  falls  on  Sunday,  on  March  5, 
the  President  is  inaugurated.  Originally  the  ceremony 
occurred  in  the  hall  of  the  Senate  or  House  as  the 
President  elect  indicated;  but  in  1817,  because  Speaker 
Clay  objected  to  the  red  morocco  chairs  of  the  Senate 
being  substituted  for  the  plain  democratic  seats  of  the 
House,  the  committee  "retired  somewhat  huffed,"  as 
Clay  expressed  it,  and  held  the  function  on  the  east 
portico  of  the  Capitol.2  This  eligible  place,  affording  all 
the  people  an  opportunity  to  witness  the  spectacle,  at 
once  became  the  favorite  locality,  and  except  in  1821 
and  1825,  when  the  ceremony  occurred  in  the  hall  of  the 
House,  and  again  in  1909,  when  inclement  weather  pre- 

1  24th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  212. 

8  Constitution,  Amendment  xii.  See,  also,  Act  of  January  19, 1886, 
24  Stat.  L.,  p.  1. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    355 

vented,  and  the  ceremony  occurred  in  the  Senate 
Chamber,  the  oath  has  been  administered  and  the 
address  delivered  on  the  spot  immortalized  by  the  two 
inaugurals  of  President  Lincoln. 

For  a  time  the  House,  because  it  ceases  to  exist  as  an 
organized  body  before  the  event,  had  no  official  connec- 
tion with  the  inauguration  of  the  President;  but  for 
many  years  a  joint  committee  has  perfected  the  ar- 
rangements, members  of  the  House,  during  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  Vice-President,  occupying  seats  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate,  with  the  Speaker  at  the  right  of  the  pre- 
siding officer.  On  the  march  to  the  portico  of  the  Capitol 
they  are  preceded  by  the  Supreme  Court,  ambassadors 
and  ministers  of  foreign  countries,  and  members  of  the 
Senate.  Following  them  are  members  of  the  Cabinet, 
the  Admiral  of  the  Navy,  the  General  of  the  Army, 
governors  of  States,  and  other  officials  invited  to  the 
floor  of  the  Senate. 

Although  the  Constitution  fixes  the  time  for  the  as- 
sembling of  Congress  on  the  first  Monday  in  December, 
the  President  may  convene  it  or  either  House  at  an 
earlier  day  and  at  a  place  other  than  the  seat  of  govern- 
ment. Such  special  session  ends,  however,  on  the  day 
the  regular  session  begins.  After  its  organization  the 
House  informs  the  President  of  the  presence  of  a  quorum 
and  its  readiness  to  receive  his  message.  The  election  of 
a  Speaker  amounts  to  an  organization,  and  in  1860  noti- 
fication preceded  the  selection  of  a  clerk;  but  usually  it 
follows  the  choice  of  all  its  officers.  It  is  customary,  also, 
though  not  an  invariable  rule,  for  the  House  to  notify 
the  President  of  the  election  of  a  Speaker  pro  tern.  When 


356    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

near  the  close  of  a  session  it  likewise  notifies  him  of  its 
approaching  adjournment,  and  if  the  two  bodies  disagree 
as  to  the  time  he  may  adjourn  them. 

The  President  presents  a  message  at  the  opening  of 
each  annual  or  special  session,  and  at  such  other  times  as 
he  may  desire  to  make  a  communication.  Besides  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  routine  affairs  of  the  Government,  such 
messages  may  include  reports  from  heads  of  depart- 
ments, the  promulgation  of  the  ratification  of  constitu- 
tional amendments,  communications  or  petitions  from 
foreigners,  and  letters  impeaching  the  conduct  of  federal 
civil  officials.  Presidents  Washington  and  John  Adams, 
flanked  by  the  Vice-President  and  Speaker,  presented 
their  annual  messages  in  person.  Subsequently  the  Vice- 
President,  attended  by  the  Speaker  and  members  of  the 
two  Houses,  proceeded  to  the  President's  audience 
chamber  and  presented  a  joint  address  in  reply.  Presi- 
dent Jefferson  preferred  to  communicate  in  writing,  a 
custom  which  continued  until  President  Wilson  (1913) 
revived  the  earlier  practice.  Although  one  way  is  as 
proper  as  the  other,  the  applause  which  greets  the 
Chief  Executive,  especially  after  he  has  appeared  sev- 
eral times  in  person,  is  likely  to  be  confined  to  one 
side  of  the  chamber,  giving  the  ceremony  something 
of  a  partisan  character,  which  occasions  a  subtle  em- 
barrassment. If  a  message  be  transmitted  in  writing, 
it  is  promptly  received  by  the  House,  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  if  it  be  in  session  at  the  time,  informally  ris- 
ing for  the  purpose.  If  presented  before  the  organization 
of  the  House,  it  remains  in  the  custody  of  the  clerk.  If 
of  a  confidential  character,  a  rule  of  the  House,  though 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    357 

not  invoked  since  1843,  provides  for  a  secret  session.  An 
annual  message  is  formally  laid  before  the  House  at  a 
time  prescribed  by  the  order  of  business.  It  is  then  read 
in  full,  entered  in  the  Journal,  printed  in  the  Congres- 
sional Record,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union,  which,  on 
motion  of  the  chairman  of  Ways  and  Means,  distributes 
the  various  topics  to  appropriate  standing  or  select  com- 
mittees with  or  without  instructions.  Special  messages, 
however,  even  when  relating  to  matters  of  great  im- 
portance, are  ordinarily  referred  to  committees  by  the 
Speaker  without  reading  or  debate.  To  lay  a  communi- 
cation from  the  President  on  the  table,  other  than  a  veto 
message,  is  considered  a  mark  of  disapprobation. 

All  enrolled  bills  and  such  resolutions  as  are  legisla- 
tive in  effect,  except  those  proposing  amendments  to  the 
Constitution,  go  to  the  President  for  his  approval,  and, 
if  signed,  are  deposited  with  the  Secretary  of  State  for 
preservation  and  publication.  If  not  signed  or  returned 
within  ten  days,  they  become  laws,  unless  in  the  mean 
time  Congress  expires.  It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  ad- 
journment for  a  recess  invalidates.  A  bill  returned  with 
the  President's  objections  is  privileged,  and  if  a  quorum 
be  present  it  is  usually  considered  at  once.  It  cannot  be 
postponed  indefinitely,  but  if  returned  too  late  in  the 
session  for  consideration  because  of  the  absence  of  a 
quorum,  it  may  be  acted  upon  at  the  next  session  of  the 
same  Congress.  To  lay  it  on  the  table,  or  to  refer  it,  is 
equivalent  to  agreeing  to  the  President's  objections.  If 
passed  in  both  Houses  by  two  thirds  of  those  present  it 
goes  directly  to  the  Secretary  of  State.  ? 


358    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

As  a  rule  Presidents  have  used  the  veto  sparingly. 
In  a  measure  this  has  been  due  to  the  watchfulness  of 
Congress  and  the  frankness  of  the  Chief  Executive,  for 
members  not  infrequently  obtain  the  President's  views 
in  advance.  On  more  than  one  occasion  President 
Roosevelt  publicly  announced  a  veto  if  a  pending  meas- 
ure passed.  The  original  purpose  of  the  veto  was  to  safe- 
guard the  Executive  against  the  encroachments  of  Con- 
gress, but  for  many  years  it  has  been  exercised  to  defeat 
measures  objectionable  in  principle  or  in  probable  results. 
President  Lincoln,  speaking  of  executive  influence,  said : 
"By  the  Constitution,  the  Executive  may  recommend 
measures  which  he  may  think  proper,  and  he  may  veto 
those  he  thinks  improper,  and  it  is  supposed  he  may  add 
to  these  certain  indirect  influences  to  affect  the  actions  of 
Congress.  My  political  education  strongly  inclines  me 
against  a  very  free  use  of  any  of  these  means  by  the 
Executive  to  control  the  legislation  of  the  country.  As 
a  rule  I  think  that  Congress  should  originate  as  well  as 
perfect  its  measures  without  external  bias."  1 

President  Cleveland  regarded  the  right  of  veto  as  in- 
tended "to  invoke  the  exercise  of  executive  judgment 
and  invite  executive  action."  Of  two  hundred  and  sixty- 
five  private  pension  bills  heretofore  vetoed  by  all  the 
Presidents,  he  disapproved  two  hundred  and  sixty. 
Washington  used  the  veto  but  twice,  and  Adams,  Jef- 
ferson, John  Quincy  Adams,  Van  Buren,  William  Henry 
Harrison,  Taylor,  Fillmore,  and  Garfield,  not  at  all. 
Lincoln  vetoed  three.  Johnson  was  not  so  modest.  He 
thought  ten  bills  unconstitutional  and  many  others  in- 
1  Speech  at  Pittsburg,  February  15,  1861. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    359 

advisable.  McKinley  disapproved  fourteen  bills;  Roose- 
velt, forty;  Taft,  twenty-five;  and  Wilson  (thus  far, 
1915),  four.  Up  to  the  end  of  Roosevelt's  Administra- 
tion two  hundred  and  seventy-six  measures  other  than 
private  pension  bills  had  suffered  veto,  of  which  sixty- 
eight  were  deemed  unconstitutional.  That  Congress  did 
not  ordinarily  differ  widely  from  the  views  set  forth  in 
veto  messages  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  only  twenty- 
nine  of  the  five  hundred  and  forty-one  were  re-passed, 
and  of  these  fifteen  were  bills  vetoed  by  Johnson. 1 

Among  the  "certain  indirect  influences"  to  which 
Lincoln  referred  is  the  questionable  practice,  severely 
criticized  of  late  by  many  members  of  both  Houses,  of 
letting  it  be  known  that  certain  bills  originated  in  the 
White  House.  The  President  has  no  express  power  to 
submit  the  text  of  a  measure  and  ask  Congress  to  enact 
it,  and  the  cases  are  probably  few  in  which  he  has  done 
so.  But  the  heads  of  departments  have  often  drawn 
bills  of  the  highest  importance  and  have  caused  their  in- 
troduction by  some  member  friendly  to  the  object 
sought.  The  second  Bank  Act  of  1816  and  the  Walker 
Tariff  Act  of  1846  are  early  and  conspicuous  instances  of 
this  practice.  That  President  Grant  suggested  the  draft- 
ing and  passage  of  the  Electoral  Commission  Act  in 
1877  is  common  knowledge.  It  is  equally  well  known 
that  President  Roosevelt  was  largely  instrumental  hi  the 
enactment  of  the  Transportation  Act  of  1907.  Nor  is  it 
a  secret  that  President  Taft  insisted  upon  significant 
changes  hi  the  Tariff  Act  of  1909.  Indeed,  since  the 

1  Of  the  bills  passed  over  a  veto,  one  was  disapproved  by  Tyler;  five 
by  Pierce;  fifteen  by  Johnson;  four  by  Grant;  one  by  Hayes;  one  by 
Arthur;  and  two  by  Cleveland. 


360    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

time  of  President  Cleveland  the  Chief  Executive  has  not 
hesitated  to  influence  legislation  by  special  messages, 
through  the  public  press,  and  by  direct  appeal  to  indi- 
vidual members. 

The  House  has  always  exercised  its  right  to  make  re- 
quests of,  and  to  express  its  opinion  to,  the  President. 
In  the  early  days  the  joint  address  adopted  by  the  two 
bodies  and  presented  by  the  Vice-President  became  the 
medium  of  such  communications.  Since  the  abandon- 
ment of  that  practice  it  has  spoken  through  resolutions. 
In  1807  it  asked  him  to  inquire  into  charges  against  the 
chief  of  the  army.  So,  in  1856,  it  requested  that  military 
protection,  if  necessary,  be  afforded  to  a  committee 
charged  with  the  investigation  of  affairs  in  the  Territory 
of  Kansas.  Indeed,  it  has  not  hesitated  to  ask  him  to 
reduce  executive  estimates,  to  transmit  proposed  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution,  to  investigate  river  and 
harbor  improvements,  to  inquire  into  the  culpability  of 
executive  officers,  and  to  negotiate  treaties.  With  ques- 
tionable propriety  it  has  ventured  to  bestow  praise  and 
censure. 

Resolutions  of  inquiry  are  the  usual  method  of  obtain- 
ing information  of  the  Executive.  When  addressed  to 
the  President  the  word  "request"  is  inserted;  if  to  a 
cabinet  officer,  the  less  conciliatory  term  "direct."  Such 
resolutions,  especially  when  relating  to  foreign  affairs, 
usually,  though  not  invariably,  contain  the  clause,  "if 
not  incompatible  with  the  public  interest."  Ordinarily 
such  resolutions  are  fully  answered,  but  the  difficulty 
and  delay  in  securing  their  adoption  by  the  House  raised 
the  question  as  early  as  1792  of  allowing  cabinet  minis- 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    361 

ters  permission  to  occupy  seats  in  the  House  and  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  proceedings.  Mr.  Jefferson  as  Secretary  of 
State  had  already  appeared  before  the  House  at  its  re- 
quest (1789),  and  President  Washington  and  Secretary 
of  War  Knox  had  visited  the  Senate  (1789). l  Fisher 
Ames  and  Elbridge  Gerry,  of  Massachusetts,  argued  that 
such  an  arrangement  would  facilitate  public  business 
and  give  the  public  a  clearer  idea  of  the  inside  workings 
of  the  departments.  But  James  Madison,  whose  potent 
influence  largely  governed  in  such  matters,  pronounced 
it  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  government  scheme, 
which  sought  to  keep  the  legislative  and  executive 
branches  absolutely  distinct.  The  House  supported  his 
objection,  and  there  the  matter  rested  until  1864,  when  a 
committee  favorably  reported  a  bill  providing  that  cab- 
inet members  participate  in  debate  upon  questions  relat- 
ing to  their  departments  and  appear  at  stated  times  to 
answer  questions.  The  discussion  stressed  the  point  that 
executive  expression  would  be  open  instead  of  secret, 
thus  avoiding  misunderstandings  and  misrepresentations. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  suggested  that  the  head  of  a 
department,  speaking  for  the  Administration,  would  be- 
come a  target  of  an  active  Opposition  to  cross-examine, 
to  assail  with  charges,  to  pick  to  pieces,  and  in  effect  to 
hide  what  he  had  to  say  in  controversial  detritus.  More- 
over, that  he  would  be  at  a  disadvantage  in  a  great 
popular  assembly,  with  its  own  privileges,  prejudices, 
and  notions,  and  among  members  of  whose  standing  and 
qualities  he  was  ignorant;  that  although  he  might  be  an 
able  speaker  in  a  courtroom  or  on  the  platform,  he  would 
1  1st  Congress,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  pp.  51,  66. 


362    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

rarely,  without  previous  legislative  experience,  be  able 
to  stand  the  hurly-burly  of  a  House,  where  only  legisla- 
tive leaders  of  long  training  can  always  be  relied  upon  to 
hold  their  patience  or  keep  their  heads,  and  not  say  too 
little  or  too  much. 

It  was  agreed  that  Congress  had  authority  to  pass 
such  a  law,  yet  the  pros  and  cons,  a  cluster  of  surmises, 
light  and  vague,  seemed  to  inspire  a  fear  that  the  ar- 
rangement might  do  more  harm  than  good,  and  so  the 
subject  was  again  dropped  without  action.1  Eight  years 
later  (1872)  Walter  Bagehot,  the  distinguished  English 
writer,  declared  that  "tried  by  their  own  aims,  the 
founders  of  the  United  States  were  wise  in  excluding  the 
ministers  from  Congress."  2 

Meantime,  resolutions  of  inquiry  often  occasioned 
strained  relations  between  the  House  and  the  Executive. 
Although  no  legislation  existed  requiring  the  latter  to 
respond,  the  House  maintained  its  inherent  right  to  all 
information  relating  to  subjects  within  the  sphere  of  its 
legitimate  powers,  and  while  it  recognized  that  the  de- 
mand for  papers  and  documents  should  be  carefully 
limited  to  those  already  on  file  and  relating  to  cases 
imperatively  required  by  the  public  interest,  it  inti- 
mated that  an  official  who  should  exclude  from  the  files 
a  paper  of  a  public  character  because  he  considered  it 
private  would  be  liable  to  an  accusation  with  a  view  to 
impeachment.3 

A  more  vigorous  assertion  of  this  right  was  promul- 
gated in  1842,  when  President  Tyler  held  that,  pending 

1  38th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  419-24,  437-48. 

*  The  English  Constitution,  p.  95. 

»  24th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  House  Rep.  no.  194. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    363 

an  investigation  respecting  frauds  practiced  upon  the 
Cherokee  Indians,  the  Executive,  as  a  coordinate  and  in- 
dependent branch  of  the  Government,  possessed  a  dis- 
cretionary right  to  furnish  or  withhold  the  information 
sought.  To  this  the  House  replied  that  while  the  Consti- 
tution makes  each  coordinate  branch  independent  of 
the  other,  and  assigns  to  the  President  alone  certain 
functions,  such  as  pardons,  appointments  to  office,  and 
negotiation  of  treaties,  it  authorizes  the  House  to  in- 
vestigate all  abuses  for  the  prevention  of  their  recur- 
rence by  proper  legislation,  and  in  the  exercise  of  this 
function  it  has  a  right  to  all  information  wherever  it 
exists.  This  right  belongs  to  its  character,  is  one  of  its 
attributes,  derived  not  alone  from  its  power  to  impeach, 
but  from  its  character  of  "grand  inquest  of  the  nation," 
which  is  a  permanent  right  inherent  in  it ;  and  in  demand- 
ing information  from  the  departments  for  the  purpose  of 
performing  this  legislative  function,  it  neither  invades, 
impairs,  nor  suspends  any  right,  power,  or  function  of 
the  Executive.  Nor  does  it  follow,  continued  the  report, 
that  information  communicated  to  the  House  must  be 
made  public,  since  nothing  prevents  it  from  observing 
secrecy.  For  this  reason  court  rules,  which  exclude  par- 
ticular evidence  on  the  ground  of  public  policy,  do  not 
apply  to  parliamentary  tribunals.  Nor  can  the  rule 
which  relieves  a  witness  from  producing  private  papers 
that  would  criminate  himself  apply  to  the  President, 
for  official  information  spread  upon  the  records  or  con- 
tained in  the  files  of  departments  is  neither  private  nor 
privileged.1 

1  27th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  House  Rep  no.  271. 


364    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

"  Nevertheless,  the  President  has  resisted  the  right  of  the 
House  to  inquire  into  alleged  corrupt  or  illegal  violations 
of  duty  by  the  Executive  except  as  an  impeaching  body, 
and  has  even  then  refused  to  furnish  evidence  which 
might  be  used  for  impeachment  purposes  against  him- 
self or  the  heads  of  departments.  Thus,  in  1837,  Presi- 
dent Jackson  vigorously  resisted  an  attempt  to  secure 
his  assistance  to  investigate  his  Administration.  "In 
open  violation  of  the  Constitution  and  that  well-estab- 
lished maxim  that  *  all  men  are  presumed  to  be  innocent 
until  proven  guilty,'"  he  said,  "you  request  myself  and 
heads  of  departments  to  become  our  own  accusers  and 
to  furnish  the  evidence  to  convict  ourselves."  l  In  1860 
President  Buchanan  insisted  that  a  resolution,  authoriz- 
ing the  House  to  inquire  whether  the  Executive  or  any 
officer  of  the  Government  has  sought  to  influence  the 
action  of  Congress  by  money,  patronage,  or  other  im- 
proper means,  amounted  to  a  charge  of  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors,  and  declared  that,  since  it  possessed  no 
power  to  investigate  except  as  an  impeaching  body,  its 
accusations  should  be  definitely  set  forth  and  first  con- 
sidered by  the  Judiciary  Committee.2  Again,  when  the 
House,  in  1876,  sought  information  respecting  the  per- 
formance of  executive  acts  at  a  distance  from  the  seat  of 
government,  President  Grant  replied  that  the  inquiry 
did  not  necessarily  belong  to  the  province  of  legislation. 
"  If  it  be  requested  in  view  or  in  aid  of  the  power  of  im- 
peachment, it  is  asked  in  derogation  of  an  inherent, 
natural  right,  recognized  in  this  country  by  a  constitu- 

1  24th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  House  Rep.  no.  194. 

2  36th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Rep.  no.  394. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    365 

tional  guarantee  which  protects  every  citizen,  the  Presi- 
dent as  well  as  the  humblest  in  the  land,  from  being 
made  a  witness  against  himself."  l 

The  House  yielded  to  the  contention  of  President 
Jackson  that  it  could  investigate  only  with  impeach- 
ment in  view,2  and  upon  receiving  President  Grant's 
reply,  it  concluded  to  drop  the  matter.  But  in  1860  it 
maintained  at  great  length  that  the  practice  of  investi- 
gating the  acts  of  the  Executive  was  coextensive  with 
the  existence  of  the  Government,  and  that  the  House 
could  proceed  as  it  saw  fit,  its  power  to  investigate  acts 
of  the  President  not  being  limited  to  impeachment. 
Under  the  Constitution,  it  said,  the  President  possesses 
neither  privilege  nor  immunity  beyond  that  of  the 
humblest  citizen,  and  under  the  law  he  is  left  without 
shield  or  protection  except  such  as  is  borne  by  all.  He  is 
amenable  for  all  his  acts,  can  make  no  plea  denied  to  any 
other  citizen,  and  is  subject  to  the  same  scrutiny,  trial, 
and  punishment,  with  the  hazards  and  penalties  of  im- 
peachment superadded.  The  President  and  the  citizen 
stand  upon  an  equality  of  rights,  the  distinction  between 
them  simply  arising  from  an  inequality  of  duties.3 

Requests  of  the  House  for  information  and  papers 
relating  to  treaties  with  foreign  nations  have  often  been 
denied  by  the  Chief  Executive.  In  1796  President 
Washington  declared  that  to  admit  the  right  of  the 
House  to  demand  and  receive  as  a  matter  of  course  all 
papers  respecting  a  negotiation  with  a  foreign  power 

1  44th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  2158. 

2  24th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  House  Rep.  no.  194.1 

»  36th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  997-98,  1434-40;  House  Rep. 
no.  394. 


366   THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

would  establish  a  dangerous  precedent.  "  It  is  essential 
to  the  due  administration  of  Government,"  he  said, 
"  that  the  boundaries  fixed  by  the  Constitution  between 
the  different  departments  should  be  preserved,  and  a 
just  regard  to  the  Constitution  and  to  the  duty  of  my 
office,  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  forbid  a 
compliance  with  your  request."  1  Thereupon  the  House 
adopted  a  resolution  declaring  that  it  claimed  no  agency 
hi  making  treaties;  but  it  insisted  that  "when  a  treaty 
stipulates  regulations  on  any  of  the  subjects  submitted 
by  the  Constitution  to  the  power  of  Congress,  it  must 
depend  for  its  execution,  as  to  such  stipulations,  on  a 
law  or  laws  to  be  passed  by  Congress;  and  it  is  the  con- 
stitutional right  of  the  House  in  all  such  cases  to  de- 
liberate on  the  expediency  of  carrying  such  treaty  into 
effect,  and  to  determine  and  act  thereon  as  in  their 
judgment  may  be  most  conducive  to  the  public  good."  2 
Alexander  Hamilton,  whom  Mr.  Jefferson  regarded  as 
the  author  of  the  President's  message,  afterward  ex- 
pressed his  regret  that  a  qualified  answer  had  not  been 
returned.3  Nevertheless,  in  declining  to  comply  with  the 
request  of  the  House  for  a  copy  of  the  instructions  to  the 
minister  who  negotiated  a  treaty  with  Mexico,  President 
Polk  relied  (1848)  upon  the  Washington  precedent,  al- 
though John  Quincy  Adams  stubbornly  supported  the 
position  of  the  House  in  1796.  No  further  action  was 
then  taken,  but  it  illustrates  the  abiding  faith  in  the 
principle,  that  the  House,  during  the  administration  of 
President  Grant,  again  asserted  its  right  by  readopting 

1  4th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  pp.  426-782.          *  Ibid.,  p.  782. 
8  40th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  House  Rep.  no.  37. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    367 

without  debate  or  division  the  resolution  of  the  Fourth 
Congress.1 

Closely  associated  with  this  question  is  the  view  that 
a  treaty  often  depends  upon  a  law  of  Congress  for  the 
execution  of  stipulations  which  relate  to  subjects  con- 
stitutionally intrusted  to  Congress.  Thus,  when  a  bill 
came  up  to  conform  American  law  to  the  provisions  of 
the  treaty  "  to  regulate  commerce  between  England  and 
the  United  States  according  to  the  convention  concluded 
on  July  3,  1815,"  the  House  maintained  its  contention 
that  while  certain  treaties  could  be  executed  without 
legislative  consent,  the  rule  did  not  apply  to  treaties 
which  contain  stipulations  requiring  appropriations,  or 
which  might  bind  the  nation  to  lay  taxes,  to  raise  armies, 
to  support  navies,  or  to  cede  or  acquire  territory.2  In  the 
consideration  of  the  bill  to  appropriate  $7,200,000  for 
the  purchase  of  Alaska  in  accordance  with  the  treaty  of 
March  30,  1867,  it  was  conceded  that  the  House  would 
be  justified  not  merely  in  withholding  its  aid,  but  in 
giving  notice  to  foreign  nations  interested  that  a  treaty 
would  not  be  regarded  as  binding  if  it  brought  into  the 
Union  and  conferred  political  powers  upon  large  popu- 
lations incapable  of  self-government;  or  alienated  terri- 
tory; or  surrendered  political  power  to  any  other  Gov- 
ernment; or  reestablished  slavery;  or  annulled  the  in- 
stitution of  marriage;  or  changed  the  character  of  the 
Government.3 

With  equal  assurance  the  House  declared  that  the 

1  42d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  835. 

«  14th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Annals,  p.  454,  473,  478,  482,  526. 

1  40th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  3620,  3658;  House  Rep.  no.  37. 


368    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

validity  of  a  commercial  treaty  fixing  rates  of  duty 
imposed  on  foreign  commodities  entering  the  United 
States  for  consumption  must  depend  upon  the  law- 
making  power;  otherwise  it  would  be  an  infraction  of 
the  Constitution  l  and  an  invasion  of  one  of  the  highest 
prerogatives  of  the  House.  This  principle  was  recog- 
nized in  the  reciprocity  treaty  with  Mexico  in  1886,  and 
subsequently  in  those  with  Canada  and  Hawaii,  the 
terms  of  which  made  their  validity  dependent  upon  the 
passage  of  appropriate  legislation  reducing  the  duties 
and  making  provision  for  carrying  into  effect  their 
terms.2  In  its  report  upon  a  bill  making  effective  a  con- 
vention with  the  Republic  of  Cuba  (1903),  the  Commit- 
tee on  Ways  and  Means  declared  that  "foreign  countries 
in  making  treaties  with  us  are  bound  to  take  notice  of 
this  requirement  of  our  Constitution,  and,  whether  it  is 
expressed  in  the  treaty  or  not,  the  whole  matter  is  sub- 
ject to  the  necessary  legislation  by  Congress."  3 

Whatever  policy  the  President  may  have  advocated, 
the  House  has  been  quick  to  voice  its  sympathy  with 
people  struggling  to  establish  their  liberty.  As  early  as 
1792  it  expressed  "sincere  interest"  in  the  adoption  of 
a  constitution  by  France,  and  in  1848  tendered  through 
a  joint  resolution  the  congratulations  of  the  American  to 
the  French  people.  Under  the  leadership  of  Henry  Clay 
(1821)  it  voiced  the  "deep  interest"  of  the  American 
people  for  the  success  of  the  Spanish  provinces  of  South 
America,  and  appropriated  $100,000  to  enable  the  Presi- 
dent to  give  due  effect  to  the  recognition  of  their  in- 

1  Art.  i,  sees.  7  and  8. 

2  24  Stat.  L.,  p.  988;  25  Stat.  L.,  p.  1370. 
8  58th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Record,  p.  260. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    369 

dependence.  The  House  also  suggested  acknowledging 
the  independence  of  Texas  (1846),  recognized  the  inde- 
pendence of  Haiti  by  a  clause  in  an  appropriation  bill 
(1862),  congratulated  the  people  of  Brazil  on  their 
adoption  of  a  republican  form  of  government  (1890),  and 
felicitated  the  people  of  Cuba  on  the  appearance  of  a 
Cuban  Republic  (1902).  Only  when  the  House  expressed 
its  sympathy  for  the  people  of  Mexico,  struggling  against 
the  French  invasion  of  1864,  did  the  Executive  deny 
its  authority  to  act.  The  House  was  unwilling  that  its 
silence  on  the  subject  should  be  accepted  by  the  nations 
of  the  world  as  a  manifestation  of  indifference  to  a  vio- 
lation of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  accordingly,  on 
April  4,  1864,  it  passed  by  a  unanimous  vote  a  joint 
resolution  declaring  that  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  "are  not  indifferent  spectators  of  the  deplorable 
events  now  transpiring  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico;  and 
they  therefore  think  fit  to  declare  that  it  does  not  accord 
with  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  acknowledge  a 
monarchical  government  erected  on  the  ruins  of  any 
republican  government  in  America  under  the  auspices 
of  any  European  power."  2 

Napoleon  III  did  not  relish  the  defiant  tone  of  this 
pronunciamento,  and  a  few  weeks  later  the  Moniteur, 
the  official  journal  of  the  French  Government,  announced 
that  "the  Emperor's  Government  has  received  from  that 
of  the  United  States  satisfactory  explanations  as  to  the 
sense  and  bearing  of  the  resolution  come  to  by  the  House 
relative  to  Mexico.  It  is  known,  besides,  that  the  Senate 
has  indefinitely  postponed  the  examination  of  that  ques- 
1  38th  Cong..  1st  Sess.,  Globe,  p.  1408. 


370    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

tion,  to  which,  in  any  case,  the  executive  power  would 
not  have  given  its  sanction."  When  this  publication 
came  to  the  knowledge  of  the  House,  it  requested  Presi- 
dent Lincoln,  "if  not  inconsistent  with  public  interest," 
to  communicate  any  explanations  given  the  Govern- 
ment of  France  respecting  the  action  of  the  House.  In 
response  he  forwarded  a  copy  of  Secretary  of  State 
Seward's  letter  to  William  L.  Dayton,  American  Minister 
to  France,  explaining  that  the  subject  of  the  House  reso- 
lution "  is  a  practical  and  purely  executive  question,  and 
the  decision  of  its  constitutionality  belongs  not  to  the 
House  nor  even  to  Congress,  but  to  the  President.  .  .  . 
While  the  President  receives  the  declaration  of  the 
House  with  the  profound  respect  to  which  it  is  entitled, 
as  an  exposition  of  its  sentiments  upon  a  grave  and  im- 
portant question,  he  directs  that  you  inform  the  Govern- 
ment of  France  that  he  does  not  at  present  contemplate 
any  departure  from  the  policy  which  this  Government 
has  hitherto  pursued  in  regard  to  the  war  which  exists 
between  France  and  Mexico."  1 

Thereupon  Henry  Winter  Davis,  the  powerful  chair- 
man of  the  House  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  pre- 
sented an  elaborate  report,  in  which,  after  citing  prec- 
edents and  the  attitude  of  former  Presidents,  he  asserted 
that  "no  President  has  ever  claimed  such  an  exclusive 
authority.  Nor  can  Congress  ever  permit  its  expression 
to  pass  without  dissent.  It  is  certain  the  Constitution 
nowhere  confers  such  authority  on  the  President.  The 
precedents  of  recognition,  sufficiently  numerous  in  this 
revolutionary  era,  do  not  countenance  this  view.  .  .  . 
1  38th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Ex.  Doc.  no.  92. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    371 

The  declaration  and  establishment  of  the  Spanish- 
American  colonies  first  brought  the  question  of  the  recog- 
nition of  new  governments  or  nations  before  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States;  and  the  precedents  then  set 
have  been  followed  ever  since,  even  by  the  present  Ad- 
ministration. The  correspondence  now  before  us  is  the 
first  attempt  to  depart  from  that  usage,  and  to  deny 
the  nation  a  controlling,  deliberative  voice  in  regulating 
its  foreign  policy."  J  In  conclusion  he  recommended  a 
resolution  declaring  that  "  Congress  has  a  constitutional 
right  to  an  authoritative  voice  in  declaring  and  pre- 
scribing the  foreign  policy  of  the  United  States  as  well 
in  the  recognition  of  new  powers  as  in  other  matters;  and 
it  is  the  constitutional  duty  of  the  President  to  respect 
that  policy,  not  less  in  diplomatic  negotiations  than  in 
the  use  of  the  national  force  when  authorized  by  law; 
and  the  propriety  of  any  declaration  of  foreign  policy  by 
Congress  is  sufficiently  proved  by  the  vote  which  pro- 
nounces it;  and  such  proposition,  while  pending  and 
undetermined,  is  not  a  fit  topic  of  diplomatic  explana- 
tion with  any  foreign  power."  2 

When  the  House,  by  a  vote  of  69  to  63,  laid  this  reso- 
lution on  the  table,  Davis  promptly  asked  to  be  relieved 
of  his  chairmanship.  It  was  a  profound  shock.  Davis 
ranked  in  ability  with  Charles  Sumner,  head  of  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  and  the  House 
could  ill  afford  to  lose  his  services.  But  it  recognized 
that  one  war  at  a  time  was  sufficient,  and  that  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  was  evidently  playing  a  waiting  game. 

1  38th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  House  Rep.  no.  129. 
8  38th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  48,  65. 


372    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Nevertheless,  the  President,  with  his  usual  disposition 
to  avoid  needless  quarrels,  saw  no  reason  why  the  reso- 
lution might  not  pass.  It  could  do  no  harm,  since  France 
was  satisfied.  Four  days  afterward,  therefore,  when 
Davis  again  presented  it,  the  House,  substituting  "Ex- 
ecutive Departments"  for  "President,"  adopted  it  — 
yeas,  119;  nays,  8.  In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to 
recall  that  at  the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  when  General 
Sheridan  occupied  the  Mexican  border  with  an  army  of 
veterans,  presumably  to  establish  the  Monroe  Doctrine, 
the  French  hastened  their  departure,  leaving  Emperor 
Maximilian  to  be  executed  by  the  Republic  of  Mexico. l 
When  the  President  and  the  House  are  in  political 
accord,  the  latter  is  slow  to  criticize  or  investigate  the 
Executive.  Between  them  is  a  common  interest.  The 
success  of  one  makes  for  the  good  of  the  other.  Besides, 
House  leaders  freely  confer  with  heads  of  departments, 
and  on  important  measures  the  President  not  infre- 
quently presses  his  views  upon  chairmen  and  other  in- 
fluential members  for  whom  he  sends.  Often  intimate 
social  relations  strengthen  the  confidence  and  freedom 
of  official  intercourse.  These  influences  account  for  the 
flaccid  action  of  the  House  in  1837  and  in  1848,  when 
President  Jackson  protested  against  the  investigation 
of  his  executive  acts  and  President  Polk  refused  to  reveal 
the  instructions  used  in  negotiating  a  treaty  with  Mexico. 
For  a  similar  reason  it  laid  the  Davis  resolution  on  the 
table  until  President  Lincoln  sub  silentio  approved  its 
adoption.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  Chief  Executive 
and  the  House  are  of  different  parties,  the  latter,  largely 
1  Philip  H.  Sheridan,  Personal  Memoirs,  vol.  n,  pp.  227-28. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    373 

for  political  purposes,  boldly  and  sometimes  impudently 
presses  its  demands  for  information,  and  resents  a  denial 
of  its  authority  in  language  indicating  a  high  degree  of 
feeling.  It  may  well  be  doubted  if  the  House,  whatever 
its  constitutional  rights,  would  have  made  its  savage 
reports  in  1842  and  in  1860  had  it  been  in  political  accord 
with  Presidents  Tyler  and  Buchanan.  Equally  plain  is  it 
that  the  demand  for  information  respecting  President 
Grant's  official  acts  when  absent  from  Washington 
originated  in  the  Opposition  party. 

When  a  disagreement  between  a  friendly  House  and 
the  President  involves  a  principle  which  affects  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  legislative  branch,  the  attitude  of  the 
latter  depends  upon  the  spirit  of  its  leaders.  The  respect 
and  high  esteem  in  which  the  House  held  President 
Washington  did  not  restrain  it  from  respectfully  asserting 
its  right  to  deliberate  on  and  determine  the  expediency 
of  a  treaty  which  depended  for  its  execution  on  a  law  to 
be  passed  by  Congress;  but  when  President  Jackson  ex- 
tended the  Washington  precedent  to  a  treaty  with  the 
Chickasaw  tribe  of  Indians,  it  entered  no  protest.  In 
one  case,  the  House  acted  with  spirit,  conscious  of  its 
fidelity  to  principle;  in  the  other,  it  showed  a  craven 
obsequiousness.  Similar  instances  in  its  history  might 
be  multiplied,  for  types  of  leaders  varied  in  different 
periods. 

The  choice  of  Speaker  Macon,  facilitated  by  the  coali- 
tion between  the  South  and  the  New  York  Democracy, 
which  resulted  in  President  Jefferson's  election,  rendered 
the  House  completely  subservient  to  the  Chief  Executive. 
Even  the  appointment  of  chairmen  of  important  com- 


374    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

mittees,  especially  those  which  act  as  organs  of  com- 
munication with  the  President,  were  consented  to,  if  not, 
as  in  the  case  of  John  Randolph,  suggested  by,  the  Ad- 
ministration. Nor  did  Speaker  Varnum  modify  these 
conditions.  He  rid  Ways  and  Means  of  Randolph  over 
the  wishes  of  Albert  Gallatin,  then  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  but  not  until  the  loquacious  Virginian  had 
become  an  object  of  dislike  to  the  House  and  of  distrust 
to  the  President.  Indeed,  during  Jefferson's  Adminis- 
tration the  theory  that  the  legislative  and  executive 
branches  are  independent  of  each  other  became  a  fiction, 
the  supremacy  of  the  latter  being  practically  acknowl- 
edged. "Between  you  and  myself,"  Jefferson  wrote  to 
Speaker  Macon,  "nothing  but  opportunities  for  expla- 
nation can  be  necessary  to  defeat  the  endeavors  of  an 
enemy  who  is  sowing  tares  between  us.  At  least,  on  my 
part,  my  confidence  in  you  is  so  unqualified  that  nothing 
further  is  necessary  for  my  satisfaction."  1  It  should  be 
added  in  defense  of  the  House  that  at  this  time  it  had 
few  if  any  men  of  sufficient  prominence,  except  Randolph, 
to  break  the  Jeffersonian  spell  under  which  Macon  had 
fallen. 

Henry  Clay  reversed  this  order  of  things.  With  a  fear- 
less nature  and  unrivaled  powers  he  became  a  legislative 
leader,  dominating  President  Madison  during  the  War 
of  1812  and  successfully  opposing  President  Monroe. 
He  stood  for  internal  improvements,  for  a  protective 
tariff,  for  recognition  of  the  South  American  Govern- 
ments, and  for  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  carried 
them  all  through.  But  with  the  passing  of  Clay  and 
1  Jefferson's  MSS.,  March  22,  1806. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    375 

other  leaders  who  gave  character  to  the  House,  conditions 
dropped  to  the  level  of  those  existing  under  Jefferson;  and 
although  the  strong  will  of  Jackson  roused  antagonisms 
within  as  well  as  without  his  party,  he  absolutely  dom- 
inated Speaker  Stevenson  and  his  committees.  The 
margin  was  often  meager,  once  being  reduced  to  the 
Chair's  casting  vote,  but  it  sufficed  to  control  the  in- 
vestigation of  the  National  Bank,  and  to  secure  a  favor- 
able report  from  the  committee  charged  with  an  investi- 
gation of  the  Executive's  acts.  Though  other  Presidents 
prior  to  the  Civil  War  lacked  Jackson's  dominating  will 
power,  it  became  the  habit  of  a  Speaker,  if  of  the  same 
faith,  to  subserve  the  interests  of  the  Administration. 
His  election  meant  subserviency.  In  fact,  the  slightest 
show  of  independence,  either  by  President,  Speaker,  or  ; 
Administration  member,  was  deemed  a  breach  of  faith 
to  the  one  supreme  issue  around  which  for  twenty  years 
the  contentious  waves  broke  angrily.  As  the  contest  over 
slavery  grew  in  bitterness,  the  House  passed  more  often 
into  opposition,  making  the  Speaker  the  rival  of  the 
President  and  his  committees  a  check  upon  executive 
policies.  Thus  the  House  in  opposition  developed  a 
power  of  initiative  unequaled  since  the  time  of  Clay,  and 
which  it  never  again  entirely  surrendered  even  under 
a  President  of  its  own  political  faith. 

This  independence  was  observable  early  in  1861,  when 
the  House,  by  a  concurrent  resolution,  assumed  the  right 
to  investigate  the  conduct  of  the  war,  authorizing  a, 
joint  committee  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,  and  to 
sit  during  the  session  of  either  body.  A  more  energetic 
manifestation  of  it  appeared  shortly  after  the  death  of 


376    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

President  Lincoln.  Its  excuse  was  the  incredible  and 
pertinacious  folly  of  President  Johnson,  which  first 
irritated  and  then  exasperated  his  party.  Finally,  the 
House,  led  as  fearlessly  by  Thaddeus  Stevens  as  Henry 
Clay  had  marshaled  its  opposition  to  Madison  and  Mon- 
roe, took  a  position  of  open  hostility,  its  resistance  re- 
sembling somewhat  that  of  the  Commons  in  the  days  of 
the  Long  Parliament.  Of  course  nothing  so  extreme  had 
occurred  before,  or,  let  it  be  hoped,  is  likely  to  happen 
again;  but  even  with  the  coming  of  harmonious  rela- 
tions under  other  Presidents,  an  unwillingness  to  part 
with  the  prerogatives  and  independence  wrenched  from 
the  feeble  hand  of  President  Johnson  occasionally  ex- 
hibited itself  in  bold  assertions  that  surprised  its  own 
leaders,  mindful  of  the  unceasing  attrition  of  an  Execu- 
tive laden  with  a  patronage  that  invites  like  the  flesh- 
pots  of  Egypt.  Thus,  in  reaffirming,  during  the  Admin- 
istration of  President  Grant  (1871),  the  attitude  of  its 
predecessor  in  1796  respecting  its  constitutional  right  to 
determine  the  expediency  of  carrying  a  treaty  into  effect, 
it  displayed  a  spirit  of  rare  firmness.  Courage  as  well  as 
wisdom  was  likewise  manifested  in  1875,  when,  by  a  vote 
of  223  to  18,  it  resolved  that  any  departure  from  the 
time-honored  custom  of  limiting  the  Presidency  to  two 
terms  would  be  unwise,  unpatriotic,  and  fraught  with 
peril  to  our  free  institutions.1 

It  was  thought  at  the  time  an  unusual  display  of  self- 
reliance  for  a  House  of  moderate,  careful  members,  on 
the  eve  of  an  election  in  1890,  to  ignore  a  proposition 
submitted  by  Mr.  Elaine,  then  Secretary  of  State,  re- 

1  44th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Journal,  p.  66. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    377 

leasing  sugar  duties  in  the  interest  of  reciprocity.  He 
had  long  considered  the  subject,  had  definite  ideas  and 
organized  plans,  and  felt  an  eager  interest  in  the  smallest 
minutiae  of  the  mode  of  dealing  with  it.  Indeed,  many 
thought  it  a  pity  that  McKinley  himself  did  not  propose 
it  to  help  balance  the  elastic  properties  of  other  and 
newer  schemes  that  appealed  to  his  imagination,  espe- 
cially since  any  reciprocal  advantages  coming  from  Elaine 
to  a  House  controlled  by  Speaker  Reed,  whose  hostility 
to  the  Administration  was  outspoken,  were  certain  to 
be  pronounced  incommensurate.  President  Cleveland's 
specific  and  urgent  recommendations  for  the  Wilson 
Tariff  Bill  (1894)  met  as  cool  a  reception.  He  had  won 
his  election  on  the  principle  of  a  tariff  for  revenue  only, 
and  although  disposed,  apparently,  to  allow  a  very  mod- 
erate measure  of  protection,  the  legislative  leaders  pre- 
ferred an  open  break  rather  than  yield  to  his  demands. 
An  exhibition  of  independence  quite  as  intrepid  occurred 
during  the  Buchanan  Administration,  when  the  House 
not  only  refused  to  comply  with  the  President's  request 
to  impeach  rather  than  investigate,  but  pointedly  re- 
sented statements  made  in  his  message. 

Nevertheless,  the  influence  of  the  President  in  the 
House,  whether  controlled  by  his  own  party  or  another, 
is  very  far  from  negligible.  The  Constitution,  as  else- 
where stated,  limits  his  duties  to  recommendations  and 
the  approval  or  disapproval  of  measures.  To  protect 
members  from  executive  influence,  the  fear  of  which 
seems  to  have  been  constantly  before  its  framers,  it  also 
provided  that  "No  senator  or  representative  shall,  dur- 
ing the  time  for  which  he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to 


378    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

any  civil  office  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States, 
which  shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emoluments 
whereof  shall  have  been  increased,  during  such  time; 
and  no  person  holding  any  office  under  the  United  States 
shall  be  a  member  of  either  House  during  his  continuance 
in  office."  l  In  other  words,  a  legislator  was  not  to  be  in- 
duced to  create  an  office,  or  to  increase  the  emoluments 
of  one,  in  the  hope  of  an  appointment;  nor  was  the  Ex- 
ecutive able  to  appoint  him  while  he  continued  in  Con- 
gress. But  in  practice  these  constitutional  limitations 
neither  preserved  the  legislator's  independence  nor  re- 
strained executive  influence.  In  fact,  the  President's 
possession  of  an  ever-increasing  patronage  has  enabled 
him  at  times  to  absorb  the  legislative  branch  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. President  Jefferson's  manipulation  to  secure 
an  appointment  for  Joseph  H.  Nicholson,  of  Maryland, 
for  the  purpose  of  crushing  Randolph's  opposition,  fur- 
nished an  early  exhibition  of  such  influence.  But  not 
until  Jackson  adopted  Marcy's  adage,  "To  the  victor 
belong  the  spoils,"  did  the  President  become  a  patron- 
age broker,  rewarding  the  obedient  and  punishing  the 
contumacious.  Although  militant  reformers,  after  years 
of  patient  struggle,  have  gradually  exempted  depart- 
mental clerks  and  other  subordinates  from  the  spoils 
system,  an  army  of  appointees  still  remains  subject  to 
the  bargaining  propensities  of  the  Chief  Executive.2 
Some  have  dispensed  this  patronage  less  conspicuously 
than  others,  but  all  have  used  it  when  conditions  de- 
manded. 

1  Art.  i,  sec.  6. 

*  The  list  prepared  by  a  recent  statistician  includes  over  sixty 
thousand  offices. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    379 

In  the  spring  of  1864,  after  deciding  upon  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  abolishing  slavery,  President 
Lincoln,  in  order  to  secure  its  approval  by  three  fourths 
of  the  States,  found  it  necessary  to  create  an  additional 
Commonwealth,  to  be  called  Nevada.  Strong  opposition 
to  its  formation  developed  in  the  House,  and  to  over- 
come it  the  President  authorized  Assistant  Secretary  of 
War  Dana  to  secure  three  members  who  were  reported 
as  doubtful.  "What  do  they  want?"  asked  Dana.  "I 
don't  know.  It  makes  no  difference,"  replied  Lincoln. 
"We  must  carry  this  vote  or  be  compelled  to  raise 
another  million  of  men  and  fight,  no  one  knows  how 
long.  It  is  a  question  of  three  votes  or  new  armies." 
"What  shall  I  say  to  these  gentlemen?"  continued  the 
Assistant  Secretary.  " I  don't  know,"  said  the  President; 
"but  whatever  promises  you  make  I  will  perform." 
After  learning  that  two  wanted  internal  revenue  appoint- 
ments and  the  third  a  position  in  the  New  York  custom- 
house worth  twenty  thousand  dollars  a  year,  Dana 
promised  them  "on  the  authority  of  the  President." 
The  next  October,  concludes  the  Secretary ,  the  President 
signed  the  proclamation  admitting  Nevada  as  a  State, 
and  in  the  February  following  (1865)  it  ratified  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment.1 

It  is  seldom  that  the  application  of  such  executive  in- 
fluence reaches  the  public  even  in  the  form  of  a  reminis- 

1  The  two  received  their  places  in  the  internal  revenue  service,  but 
before  the  custom-house  appointment  was  due  to  be  made,  President 
Lincoln  was  assassinated,  and  President  Johnson  refused  to  redeem 
the  promise.  "I  have  observed  in  the  course  of  my  experience," 
said  Johnson,  "that  such  bargains  tend  to  immorality."  (Charles  A. 
Dana,  Recollections  of  the  Civil  War,  pp.  175-78.) 


380    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

cence,  but  the  results  of  such  bargaining  have  from  time 
to  time  clearly  appeared,  as,  for  example,  when  Stephen 
A.  Douglas,  assisted  by  President  Pierce,  forced  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  President 
Cleveland  constrained  an  unwilling  House  to  repeal  the 
Sherman  Silver  Purchase  Act.  With  consummate  tact, 
due  as  much  to  his  delightful  personality  as  to  long 
legislative  experience,  President  McKinley  not  only 
used  the  patronage  at  hand  to  sweeten  the  way  of  his 
Philippines  policy  which  Speaker  Reed  opposed,  but  in- 
creased the  vast  power  of  his  office  by  appointing  mem- 
bers of  Congress  to  distinguished  and  lucrative  places 
on  various  commissions,  authorized  to  negotiate  treaties, 
to  locate  boundaries,  and  to  confer  with  foreign  repre- 
sentatives respecting  other  matters.1  It  is  not  strange, 
perhaps,  that  he  should  desire  to  select  men  whom  he 
personally  knew  to  be  qualified  for  such  important  diplo- 
matic service.  It  was  something  of  a  shock,  however, 
that  this  gentlest  of  Presidents  should  presume  to  breach 
the  Constitution,  for  the  line  of  demarcation  was  vague 
and  impalpable  between  the  duties  of  such  appointees 
and  those  of  regular  diplomatic  "officers"  clothed  with 
dignity  and  authority.  McKinley  himself  evidently 
recognized  the  danger-line;  otherwise  he  would  scarcely 
have  submitted  the  names  of  the  Hawaiian  commission- 
ers to  the  Senate,  which  wisely  declined  to  take  action. 
"If  these  gentlemen  are  to  be  officers,"  asked  one  senator, 

1  These  included  arranging  a  standard  of  value  by  international 
agreement;  negotiating  peace  with  Spain;  settling  the  Behring  Sea 
controversy;  establishing  the  boundary-line  between  Alaska  and 
Canada;  arranging  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  Great  Britain;  and  se- 
curing information  upon  which  to  base  needed  legislation  for  Hawaii. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    381 

"how  can  the  President  appoint  them  under  the  Con- 
stitution, the  office  being  created  during  their  term? 
Or,  how  can  they  hold  office  and  still  keep  their  seats  in 
this  body?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  not  officers, 
under  what  constitutional  provision  does  the  President 
ask  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  to  their 
appointment?"  1 

President  Wilson  did  not  tolerate  McKinley's  in- 
defensible practice,  but  as  an  expert  in  securing  legisla- 
tion he  in  no  wise  suffers  by  comparison  with  the  most 
dominating  of  all  his  predecessors.  Soon  after  inaugura- 
tion he  became  the  legislative  leader,  dictating  bills, 
demanding  amendments,  and  forcing  his  views  into 
statutes  by  the  use  of  patronage,  which  filled  with  won- 
der and  amazement  veteran  legislators  who  had  served 
under  eight  different  Presidents.  The  Speaker  and  floor 
leader  could  not  baffle  him,  nor  a  union  of  disaffected 
leaders  and  a  solid  minority  thwart  him.  "This  was 
never  better  illustrated,"  said  the  New  York  Sun,  "than 
last  Saturday,  when  at  four  o'clock  it  became  apparent 
that  the  senators  from  the  cotton-growing  States  of  the 
South  had  effected  a  coalition  with  the  Republican  side 
to  kill  the  War-Revenue  Bill  or  suspend  it  until  legisla- 
tion was  put  into  the  measure  for  the  relief  of  the  cotton 
planters.  Immediately  a  strong  arm  was  extended  from 
the  White  House  which  promptly  throttled  the  move- 
ment within  thirty  minutes  after  the  fact  of  the  revolt 
became  known  to  Postmaster-General  Burleson,  with 
the  immense  post-office  patronage  of  the  country  at  his 
disposal.  .  .  .  When  the  test  came,  four  hours  later,  three 
*  Hoar,  Autobiography,  vol.  n,  p.  47. 


382    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

of  the  eight  revolters  faltered  and  the  scheme  col- 
lapsed."1 

Although  the  press  of  the  country  has  occasionally 
denounced  such  exhibitions  of  executive  pressure  as  re- 
prehensible, the  President  has  always  treated  patronage 
as  a  legitimate  instrument  for  influencing  Congress. 
Indeed,  not  since  the  establishment  of  a  departmental 
classified  service  has  a  Chief  Executive  suggested  the 
elimination  of  this  adventitious  influence,  until  President 
Taft  surprised  the  country  and  dismayed  the  average 
politician  by  recommending  that  almost  the  entire 
Federal  establishment  be  taken  out  of  personal  and 
partisan  politics  and  covered  into  the  classified  service. 
The  language  of  this  extraordinarily  wise  message  is 
worthy  of  repetition :  — 

"I  wish  to  renew  my  recommendation  that  all  the  local 
offices  throughout  the  country,  including  collectors  of 
internal  revenue,  collectors  of  customs,  postmasters  of 
all  four  classes,  immigration  commissioners,  and  mar- 
shals, should  be  by  law  covered  into  the  classified 

i  October  18,  1914.  Of  the  use  of  patronsfge  President  Wilson  says: 
"There  are  illegitimate  means  by  which  the  President  may  influence 
the  action  of  Congress.  He  may  bargain  with  members,  not  only 
with  regard  to  appointments,  but  also  with  regard  to  legislative 
measures.  He  may  use  his  local  patronage  to  assist  members  to  get 
or  retain  their  seats.  He  may  interpose  his  powerful  influence,  in  one 
covert  way  or  another,  in  contests  for  places  in  the  Senate.  .  .  .  Such 
things  are  not  only  deeply  immoral,  but  they  are  destructive  of  the 
fundamental  understandings  of  constitutional  government  and,  there- 
fore, of  constitutional  government  itself.  .  .  .  No  honorable  man 
includes  such  agencies  in  a  sober  exposition  of  the  Constitution.  .  .  . 
Nothing  in  a  system  like  ours  can  be  constitutional  which  is  im- 
moral or  which  touches  the  good  faith  of  those  who  have  sworn  to 
obey  the  fundamental  law.  The  reprobation  of  all  good  men  will  al- 
ways overwhelm  such  influences  with  shame  and  failure."  Woodrow 
Wilson,  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States  (1908),  p.  71. 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    383 

service,  the  necessity  for  confirmation  by  the  Senate 
removed,  and  the  President  and  the  others,  whose  time 
is  now  taken  up  in  distributing  this  patronage,  under  the 
custom  that  has  prevailed  since  the  beginning  of  the 
Government,  in  accordance  with  the  recommendation 
of  the  senators  and  congressmen  of  the  majority  party, 
should  be  relieved  from  this  burden. 

"I  am  confident  that  such  a  change  would  greatly 
reduce  the  cost  of  administering  the  Government,  and 
that  it  would  add  greatly  to  its  efficiency.  It  would  take 
away  the  power  to  use  the  patronage  of  the  Government 
for  political  purposes.  When  officers  are  recommended 
by  senators  and  congressmen  from  political  motives  and 
for  political  services  rendered,  it  is  impossible  to  expect 
that  while  in  office  the  appointees  will  not  regard  their 
tenure  as  more  or  less  dependent  upon  continued  politi- 
cal service  for  their  patrons,  and  no  regulations,  however 
stiff  or  rigid,  will  prevent  this,  for  such  regulations,  in 
view  of  the  method  and  motive  for  selection,  are  plainly 
inconsistent  and  deemed  hardly  worthy  of  respect."  * 

Of  course  the  House  desired  nothing  of  this  kind ;  other- 
wise it  would  promptly  have  passed  a  constitutional 
amendment  carrying  it  into  effect.  It  never  graciously 
approved  the  merit  system,  and  although  the  President's 
use  of  patronage  has  become  increasingly  arrogant,  often 
subjecting  its  leaders  to  humiliating  defeat,  it  has  never 
raised  its  voice  in  resentment.  The  reason  lies  on  the  sur- 
face. Under  a  custom  as  old  as  the  Government,  members 

1  62d  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  Record,  pp.  896,  947.  The  list  affected  by 
this  recommendation  included  59,237  postmasters,  122  collectors  of 
customs,  67  collectors  of  internal  revenue,  86  United  States  marshals, 
and  6  immigration  commissioners. 


384    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

of  the  majority  party  claim  the  right  to  name  federal 
officers  in  their  respective  districts,  and  obedience  to 
party  and  executive  dictation  insures  them  the  privilege. 
Indeed,  if  a  district  is  likely  to  resent  a  prescribed  policy, 
a  member,  unless  his  vote  is  absolutely  needed,  is  suf- 
fered to  assume  an  attitude  of  "independence"  and  thus 
avoid  trouble  at  home. 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  such  a  prerogative, 
held  under  such  tolerant  conditions,  is  highly  appre- 
ciated, and  although  the  distribution  of  patronage  has 
its  disadvantages,  since  the  gratitude  of  appointees  is 
not  always  as  steady  or  influential  as  the  hostility  of  the 
disappointed,  a  sacrifice  of  the  means  of  building  up  a 
political  machine  does  not  commend  itself  to  the  average 
congressman  any  more  than  to  most  Presidents. 

Upon  the  death  of  a  President,  Congress  pays  its 
tribute  of  respect.  The  decease  of  President  William 
Henry  Harrison,  the  first  to  die  in  office,  occurred  when 
the  Congress  was  not  in  session  (April  4, 1841),  but  when 
it  assembled  in  the  following  December,  John  Quincy 
Adams,  then  a  member  of  the  House,  presented  a  resolu- 
tion that  a  committee  of  one  member  from  each  State  be 
appointed,  to  join  a  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Senate, 
"to  report  by  what  token  of  respect  and  affection  it  may 
be  proper  for  Congress  to  express  the  deep  sensibility  of 
the  Nation  to  the  event  of  the  decease  of  their  late 
President."  In  obedience  to  this  mandate  a  joint  resolu- 
tion was  adopted  providing  that  the  chairs  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate  and  the  Speaker  of  the  House  be 
"shrouded"  in  black  during  the  residue  of  the  session; 
that  members  wear  the  usual  badge  of  mourning  for 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    385 

thirty  days,  and  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
be  requested,  when  transmitting  a  copy  of  the  resolu- 
tion to  Mrs.  Harrison,  "to  assure  her  of  the  profound 
respect  of  Congress  for  her  person  and  character,  and  of 
its  sincere  condolence  on  the  late  afflicting  dispensation 
of  Providence." 

Of  the  five  Presidents  who  died  in  office  the  decease  of 
Zachary  Taylor  (July  9,  1850)  alone  occurred  when 
Congress  was  in  session.  On  its  announcement  to  the 
House  several  eulogies  were  immediately  pronounced, 
the  halls  of  the  Senate  and  House  were  draped,  appro- 
priate resolutions  were  passed,  members  wore  the  usual 
badge  of  mourning,  and  on  the  day  of  burial  the  two 
Houses  attended  the  funeral  in  a  body.  When  the 
Thirty-ninth  Congress  convened  on  December  4,  1865, 
after  the  death  of  President  Lincoln  in  the  preceding 
April,1  it  desired  "to  express  the  deep  sensibility  of  the 
Nation"  by  some  "token  of  respect  and  affection"  more 
elaborate  than  that  shown  upon  the  death  of  President 
Harrison,  and  accordingly  a  joint  committee,  additional 
to  resolutions  and  emblems  of  mourning,  arranged  for  a 
meeting  of  the  two  Houses  to  be  held  in  the  chamber  of 
the  House  on  February  12,  the  anniversary  of  the  late 
President's  birthday,  to  be  addressed  by  George  Ban- 
croft, the  distinguished  historian.  To  this  assemblage 
invitations  were  extended  to  the  President  and  his 
Cabinet,  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  repre- 
sentatives of  foreign  governments,  to  such  officers  of  the 
army  and  navy  as  had  received  the  thanks  of  Congress, 
to  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Claims  and  of  the  Supreme 
1  April  15,  1865. 


386    THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  to  assistant  heads  of 
departments,  heads  of  bureaus,  the  mayors  of  Washing- 
ton and  Georgetown,  and  to  such  eminent  citizens  as 
were  then  at  the  seat  of  government. 

On  the  day  set  apart,  promptly  at  twelve  o'clock 
meridian,  members  of  the  Senate,  preceded  by  their 
officers,  entered  the  hall  of  the  House  and  occupied  the 
first  four  rows  on  either  side  of  the  main  aisle,  in  front  of 
members  of  the  House,  the  President  pro  tern  sitting  at 
the  Speaker's  right.  Thereafter  the  guests  entered  and 
occupied  seats  as  follows:  The  President  of  the  United 
States,  in  front  of  the  Speaker's  table;  the  Supreme 
Court  Justices  next  to  and  on  the  right  of  the  President; 
the  Diplomatic  Corps  next  to  and  on  the  left  of  the 
President;  heads  of  departments  on  the  left  of  the  Diplo- 
matic Corps;  army  and  navy  officers  on  the  right  of  the 
Supreme  Court  Justices;  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Claims 
and  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia 
in  the  rear  of  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court;  govern- 
ors of  States  and  mayors  in  the  rear  of  the  Diplomatic 
Corps;  and  assistant  heads  of  departments  and  heads  of 
bureaus  in  the  rear  of  the  army  and  navy  officers.  The 
orator  of  the  day  occupied  the  clerk's  desk.  The  audi- 
ence being  seated,  the  Marine  Band,  stationed  in  the 
vestibule,  played  appropriate  dirges,  after  which  the 
chaplain  of  the  Senate  offered  prayer.  The  orator  was 
then  presented  by  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate. 
The  audience  left  the  hall  as  it  entered,  except  that 
special  guests  preceded  the  senators. 

On  February  27,  1882,  a  memorial  service  of  similar 
character  was  held  after  the  death  of  President  Garfield 


THE  PRESIDENT  AND  THE  HOUSE    387 

on  September  19, 1881,  former  Speaker  Elaine  being  the 
eulogist.  On  February  27,  1902,  a  similar  service  was 
held  after  the  death  of  President  McKinley  on  Septem- 
ber 14,  1901,  the  orator  of  the  occasion  being  Secretary 
of  State  John  Hay. 

In  paying  tributes  of  respect  to  former  Presidents  at 
the  time  of  their  death,  Congress  has  observed  the  early 
precedent  of  ignoring  the  event  unless  it  occurred  when 
the  Senate  and  House  were  in  session.  Curiously  enough 
only  eight  have  died  when  the  Congress  was  in  session, 
and  the  record  shows  action  taken  only  in  the  cases  of 
six;  namely,  General  Washington  (1799),  Mr.  Madison 
(1826),  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  (1848),  Mr.  Buchanan 
(1868),  Mr.  Fillmore  (1874),  and  Mr.  Hayes  (1893). 
Mr.  Tyler  died  on  January  18,  1862,  and  Mr.  Van  Buren 
on  July  24  of  the  same  year,  when  Congress  was  in 
session,  but  Mr.  Tyler  was  then  within,  and  in  sympathy 
with,  the  Confederate  States.  Although  the  eve  of  Mr. 
Van  Buren's  life  was  as  peaceful  as  its  noon  and  day 
had  been  stormy,  Congress  likewise,  upon  the  report  of 
his  death,  took  no  action.  Six  years  afterward,  upon  the 
decease  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  the  House  tabled  a  resolution 
of  commendation.  Later  in  the  day,  however,  it  resolved 
"that  as  a  mark  of  respect  to  one  who  has  held  such 
eminent  public  station,  the  Speaker  is  requested  to 
appoint  a  committee  of  seven  members  to  attend  his 
funeral."  1  A  wag  said  that  the  House  approved  the 
funeral ! 

1  40th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  Globe,  pp.  2810,  2817. 

THE  END 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX 


391 


H 

p 

£   4 
w 


. 

.     .      .  O  i-<  ft  I-H  5*         CM  <M 
<X  CO  CO  i— t      »     »     »     «  «„ 


l>rH»OO5GOJ>W5O5  COi>i-H»-i 
Oi  O  O  O  rH  ^  o»  <X  <W  CO  •*  ^ 
!>•  00  CO  GO  GO  00  00  00  00  00  00  00 


GO 


CO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO    GO  GO  GO  ^9*  GC  GO 


lili 


t»  rH  i-H 


22 


:8J 


I   fl 


G    C 
53 


:1 


11 


392 


APPENDIX 


©  <N  yp  CD 
U5  »0  «5  «5 


CO  t~  I-l  I-H 


00 


00  »> 
r-<  i-H 

O5  O> 


^J^^ScC^^^i^ 

*o  *o  ^o  ^o  ^  co  i>-  i>*  QO  oo      oo  oo  o^  o^  o  o  o  o  ^^ 


oo 


V  i';f.v*   u 

:  :  :  :  :^  :::=!.::  : 


H3   a) 

.«  5o 


ffl^O 


^aw  a 
^181 


APPENDIX 


393 


:  ,, 


i 


o 

:  :  :  =  Q 


555555 


555: 


o 


•  •  •  •£  -  •  -  :* 
£*'«Yg  i^'s  6" 


>j 


**J 


liilM 


n 


I. 


I'  — I 

!     ! 


•si, 


H 


l-3fe*-S 


1-1  CO  «5  t»  OS  I-H  00 
i— i  i—1  I-H  i— i  i— i  9)  Ot 
CO  00  00  GO  00  00  CO 


1-1  O»  OO  •*  »O  QO  t-  00  O6  O  >-i  0»     CO 


394 


APPENDIX 


i!*M 


^f^l^As 

^£  iM5    *f     J5: 

I-   -   ,   tf  I'   s   H  1    I:     1 

Q~     ^  «2       ^^^  ^ 

d        a.g      ||    §  ^ 
I3  - 2  S«     w^  &  <T 


1 1 

fe?s 

w^O 

ill 

&$& 


a. .  - 


&--•- 

i,l 

tt  W5    = 

.      ,.J   .52 

^3    3   2    ^s.    'M      33*3"     Rpfl  9      i=  a  P  «2  ^2 

Q 

^/         :|s  «  :^^&  :  :  :  * 

•  H  ^  .  .  w  ^ 

I      S^  Si  .^3|i  £*!<3" ' « 

t*Oii-«     OO     »Ot»OS'-"COM5l>O5>-iW»Cl*O5i-iG<5»Ol>O5 


APPENDIX 


N.H. 


G 


mpson,  O 

«  « 

«  «< 


j^vis  s  ^ 

+j      ja-  -  B^Ss  s  >&9  ll? 

£      £~  "  o£~  "  <c/!K«a  P« 

^:=:^V^  j'[Uj  i5'v=v'v' 

§         §o:/.'§;;i 
i    l'll'*||J4'T 

i  *  is 'ij,;       1= 

•g          »         T2M         '27     "a  E' 

Ivl.«Jj,.W.J1:' *<>>>'* 

O         W^         W^     ^  cc 


i-HCO      «5      b-O5rHOO»Ol>O5T-iCO»Or>O> 
b*      b*      t>  b*  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  OS  OS  OS  OS  OS 

GO  GO   GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO  GO 


l> 

GO 


J>  GO  OS  O  I-H  <N  SO 

«5  »O  »0  50  tO  O  O 


396 


APPENDIX 


DOORKEEPERS  AND  POSTMASTERS 


Con- 
gress 

Year 

Doorkeepers 

Postmasters 

1 

1789 

Gifford  Dalley. 

2 

1791 

«                     it 

3 

1793 

«                     «« 

4 

1795 

Thomas  Claxton. 

5 

1797 

44                          44 

6 

1799 

»t                             41 

7 

1801 

44                          44 

8 

1803 

44                          44 

9 

1805 

44                          44 

10 

1807 

44                          44 

11 

1809 

44                          44 

12 

1811 

44                          44 

13 

1813 

44                          44 

14 

1815 

44                          44 

15 

1817 

44                          44 

16 

1819 

44                          tf 

17 

1821 

Benjamin  Birch,  Md. 

18 

1823 

44                          t4                  « 

19 

1825 

44                          44                  44 

20 

1827 

44                          44                  44 

21 

1829 

44                          44                  44 

22 

1831 

Overton  Carr,  Md. 

23 

1833 

44                         44              « 

24 

1835 

44                         44             44 

25 

1837 

44                          44             44 

William  J.  McConnick,  D.C. 

26 

1839 

Joseph  Follansbee, 

Mass  

14                                             44                            44 

27 

1841 

44                                             44                            44 

28 

1843 

Jesse  E.  Dow,  Conn. 

44                                              44                            44 

29 

1845 

Cornelius  S.  Whitney, 

D.C             

John  M.  Johnson,  Va. 

30 

1847 

Robert  E  Horner,N.  J. 

«                                       44                     44 

31 

1849 

44                                        44                    « 

44                                      44                     f4 

32 

1851 

Z.  W.  McKnew,  Md. 

«                                       44                     44 

33 

1853 

**             ««          «' 

44                                       44                     44 

34 

1855 

Nathan  Darling,  N.  Y. 

Robert  Morris,  Pa. 

35 

1857 

Robert  B.  Hackney, 

Va     

Michael  W.  Cluskey,  Ga. 

APPENDIX  397 

DOORKEEPERS  AND  POSTMASTERS  (continued) 


Con- 
gress 

Year 

Doorkeepers 

Pos<7na5ter« 

36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

1859 
1861 
1863 
1865 
1867 

George  Marston,  N.H 

Ira  Goodnow,  Vt.  .  .  . 
44            «          « 

«            «          « 

Charles  E.  Lippincott, 

Josiah  M.  Lucus,  111. 

William  S.  King,  N.Y. 
44               44        <« 

Josiah  Given,  O. 
WilliamS  King  NY 

41 

42 
43 
44 

1869 
1871 
1873 
1875 

Otis  S.  Buxton,  N.Y 
«              «           « 

44              44           « 

John  H.  Patterson, 
N.J     . 

«               «        <« 
««               <«        « 

Henry  Sherwood,  Mich. 
«             «<            « 

45 
46 

47 

1877 
1879 
1881 

Charles  W.  Field,  Ga. 

Walter  P.  Brownlow, 
Tenn  

««             «            <« 

4«                               «                           «« 
«                              4«                          44 

48 
49 

1883 
1885 

James  W.  Winter- 
smith,  Tex  
Samuel  Donaldson, 
Tenn  .    . 

Lycurgus  Dalton,  Ind 

44                               («                  44 

50 
51 

1887 
1889 

A.  B.  Kurd,  Miss.... 
Charles  E.  Adams, 
Md  

<4                               44                  44 

James  L.  Wheat,  Wis 

52 

1891 

Charles  H.  Turner. 
N.Y  

Lycurgus  Dalton,  Ind. 

53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

1893 
1895 
1897 
1899 
1901 
1903 
1905 
1907 
1909 
1911 

A.  B.Hurd,  Miss.... 

William  J.Glenn,N.Y. 
44                «        44 

44               «       44 

Frank  B.  Lyon,  N.Y. 
«              <<          <4 

<4                                  «4                        44 
44                                  <i                        « 
44                                  4t                        « 

Benjamin  Vail.  .  . 

<<                               «                  44 

Joseph  C.  McElroy,  O. 

4<                                       44                    44 
44                                       44                     44 
44                                       44                      44 
44                                       44                      44 
44                                       44                      4« 

Samuel  A.  Langum. 
William  M.  Dunbar. 

APPENDIX 


r-iOJO*         GO  CO  CO         -*Jt  rfi  »O  »Q  «5  CO 


:     3 

»»«OO» 
rH  r-i  Ot 


i-i'«*< 
CO  CO 


ll^l&^s 

pill-3"3 

|> 


!>35£ 


APPENDIX 


:    :    : 


:   : 


400 


APPENDIX 


•;.'• 


*£llfJllJ*l:    =    : 


' 


5 


H  an  o  » 

ir?  8  3    a    2 

•  >  »r|   J  £:  :  :  : 


8         "" 

O  SjJ-r       6Sa*.~SSuiB'2  J 

g  i|>  =  ^.3.11  S.i. 

S  I'll 

g 

&.  :  :  :>• 

§ 

1   j£  oS1  ^i^  ^«j  SS1 1  -jo 

g   & 

5  ?: 

I 


APPENDIX 


401 


SIS 


fj*. «•»•«»«»  s!.3= 


8 


in 


lj,lj,,i 


g 


402 


APPENDIX 


i>H. 


0=  =  5 


I'll* 


,, 

I 


8 
I 


;•§ : 

:fc  :  S 


JiSW.      ft 
S.Srfl     CO 


^ffl^tfij^     e^^^.  „ 
|S|-      I3«5&^   §  -5     -2j 

«    (3    2    C3    *> 


I 


id::^    ^ 


;Y  J     :   :   : . 

5.5    3  f4x  •  i    •£* 
•^  H   H-   "   -    £' 


t»  o> 

O5  O5 
00  CO 


APPENDIX 


403 


8 

I 


•3 

'i. 


05  I-H  CO 

0  I-H  rH 

01  C5  C^ 


404 


APPENDIX 


s 


11-a 


I J 

°   d  a 


-^      fe 
*      1 


-S 


8 

o 

Jz; 


>  «  to  a 

®  §  .2  3 

H!r 


:a, 


r  8.2  8-     O-TS       g  :, 

il!^=  «•  •  5  i! 


ii 


§  :g  : 

^dfd 


3' 


£ 


3    5*?.2:    S-    fl'SS: 

2*3  I  *** 


" 34P  I5  «l« 


e 


»O  »O  »O  >O  «5  CD 


I! 


«O 
rfl 


APPENDIX 


405 


5    5    =    5 


«S' 
1= 


a 


406 


APPENDIX 


2  .  o 

Eq     «  3  j      .55 

|j-s  :    .^g;<2:  g^=  Srf      . 

l«:^t"         ^lljH  J«5?       -|OM 

^^    II      ^1-^J  1<1   "ill 

CO         feiS*     •      fl'^C'S 

||'  II    "  lr-S? 


1 


-^'*»CtQ»OW5»f5O 


APPENDIX 


407 


is  :  : 


s 


1 
•51 

5 


*  «-ii^SlK 


**0HBW 


8 

I 


I 


I, .  f 

Q§ 


1>  t^  l>  t^ 

oo  oo  oo  GO  oo  oo 


408 


APPENDIX 


8 

I 


ills 

>JQ  ds  d 

(§11:8 


III1 


a 


8Mb 

al 


1 


«D  CO 


(2 


J5    > 
!  «•    #~    S        ••• 

!,•-   CL,"    ^      g 

;I3  f  I"  f 

g   •!„:§• 


r.d-.-H 


Q 
|     ||      § 

I:  31= 

«     <fe 


00  GO  00  00  00  00  GO  00  00 


APPENDIX 


409 


<2 


La 


lUl^liiei* 

'H  as  o  o3M~'5>5  S Jj^ p^ cfi fd  S  o >• 


fl  a 

-fl  -a 


JJIIIJJ4JIJJJI 


5 1 


1 


8 


i  rH  CO  «5  b-  O5  »-l 

^    «*    •*    ^    T}»    »0 


»O  t>  O5  I-H 
«O  »Q  «5  CO 


00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 


410 


APPENDIX 


g 


pq 


•  9 

' 


"        ^q"       •  w  •       • 

i-is   5  H»-i5  QWQ:  Q; 


W 


8 


1 


253 


*!*§,  ag    I,  . 

^  ^  t»;  >»  *  >s  o      *  s      o "  » 

81£HJta  fl'  j 


CD  ffi 


5:=:^: 
•   -s? 

M1 

--£< 


-ei  :  s  : 


,> 


*  I 
II 

$     M 


00  «3  t-  OS  rH 
l>  l>  t-  I>  00 

00  00  00  00  CO 


I 


APPENDIX 


411 


69(113 
-S3J.6 


-PAT 


suvotj 


412 


APPENDIX 


-S9j,5 


•  1-1  ^<  >-i  c*  co  N 


joqv? 


2 


-9pd\ 


-V1U9S 


99940 


APPENDIX 


413 


O 


APPORTIONMENT  OF  MEMBERS  BY  STATES 

OT6T  'W» 

S^r.a^.-*g«K9aaoaco^coSas«oac, 

0061 

'ST18U90  IllfldfflJ, 

.    :.««^«a-aga.aM«Sg.coa- 

0681  'sns 

OS     .  CD  C-  <N  Tf  »H  N  jH  -H  <M  CO  rH  CO  £  0  T*  0  CO  Oj  t^  t-  JO  ri 

088T 

00     •lOCD^THrHCSOr-IOCO^JC-r.JCOnnoeSrHIOt-^TH 

0181 

00     •  Tf  >*  r-l  Tj<  rH  (N  O 

SCOOCOOCOOCOr-jOCOOCO     ; 

0981 

CO     »COCO 

: 

0981 

f    ;<NC» 

^rHrHCO 

«S«    s*««S«'«*«-  : 

0?8I 
'snsudo  yfxis 

t»      -THIN 

•<*  rH  rH  CO 

t.0«       O^t.OOCO       *»     ; 

0281 
'snsuav  w&g 

ftO    •  ^< 

0^ 

0 

eot«         eo  eo  oo  oo  e*  »-i     CMCX   • 

OZ81 

CO     •     . 

tS  rH 

N 

1-ICO                C4COt>O»CQ      .          rHrH      • 

0181 
'snsudo  pMiijj 

**  :  : 

t-c, 

co 

rH  rH               O  rH  t-  35  CO      •         rH      .      . 

0081 
'snsudo  puoaos 

06  il 
'snsudo  ISAM 

*%ss^ss$> 

IO.H 

CO     COOO     

1 

iln  ji  i  I 

•  r         1  :  >»es  :^  §  ^fl  P»  :  : 

«§illpl|illjllls|llll?l 

roS^iaog45Cgda'™Sflc'3-S&>K':3§a2*fl 

414 


APPENDIX 


0161  'sna 


0061,  COf-iCNO     •t-Oe«;-HlO<N<N<Nt-INO«OrH<NOCO»Oi-l»H        r-l 

»H      «CO«-t         CM  CO  iH  i-l  T-(  1-H  C5 


0681 


<  CM  0  <N  •*  0  rH 


0881 


<N  0  1-1  Tl<  OJ  T-t 


I 


OL8T 
'snsudo  itfUW 


098T 


098T 
'snsuao  itfuwas 


0?8T 
'snsuao  wxis 


OS8T 
'msuzo  t/?A>T 


OZ8T 
'snsuso  yyinotf 


OCD 


coos     eooo 


0181 


.t-« 


0081 
'snsuso  puowg 


06  LI 
'snsuso  IS-IM 


i-(     .        OOCNQO 


^«IO     •  OO 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Adams,  George  M.,  action  as 
clerk,  24. 

Adams,  John,  President,  use  of 
veto,  358. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  opposes  ap- 
portionment, 6;  his  lament,  7; 
as  to  members  elect,  13;  con- 
cerning Wise,  14;  Rhett,  16; 
chairman  of  unorganized  House, 
17;  father  of  the  House,  35,  Ap- 
pendix D;  chairman  of  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  48;  opposes 
partisan  committees,  67;  re- 
sents an  appointment,  68;  on 
thanking  Stevenson,  71;  and 
Jones,  73;  on  use  of  sarcasm, 
110;  contributes  to  disorder, 
114;  funeral  of,  153-54;  refuses 
to  vote,  158;  encourages  a  dis- 
appearing quorum,  158;  esti- 
mate of  Randolph,  188-89;  on 
Revolutionary  soldiers,  215; 
fights  for  the  right  of  petition, 
215;  revision  of  speeches,  291; 
power  as  a  debater,  295;  tribute 
to  Prentiss,  318;  condemns  set- 
tlement of  contested  election 
cases,  319;  reasons  for  Chase's 
acquittal,  349;  on  quarrel  with 
Jackson,  350;  blow  at  Buchanan, 
350;  his  use  of  the  veto,  when 
President,  358. 

Aiken,  William,  character  of,  86; 
defeated  for  Speaker,  87. 

Allison,  William  B..  305. 

Alston,  Willis,  favors  previous 
question,  187. 

Ames,  Fisher,  orator  and  profound 
lawyer,  299;  prepares  rules  for 
contested  election  cases,  314; 
basis  of  Statute  of  1798,  314. 

Ames,  Oakes,  connection  with 
Credit  Mobilier,  150,  and  note. 


Annals  of  Congress,  number  of 
volumes,  101;  contents  of, 
101. 

Apportionment,  first  law,  5; 
changes  in  ratio,  5;  Webster's 
plan,  6;  unfairness  to  New  Eng- 
land, 6;  Adams's  denunciation 
of  it,  6;  Webster's  system 
adopted,  7;  large  reduction,  7; 
rapid  increase  in  numbers,  8; 
table  of,  8. 

Appropriations,  alarming  growth 
of,  250-52;  plans  to  check  waste, 
254-55. 

Archbold,  Robert  W.,  341;  im- 
peachment of,  342;  question  of 
jurisdiction,  341-42. 

Assaults  in  House,  Grow  and 
Keitt,  45,  125;  Harper  and 
Lyon,  111;  John  White,  115; 
John  Bell,  116;  Black  and  Gid- 
dings,  116;  Rousseau  and  Grin- 
nell,  138. 

Atkins,  John  D.  C.,  character  of, 
130. 

Bacon,  Ezekiel,  character  as  floor 
leader,  124. 

Bailey,  Joseph  W.,  relations  with 
Reed,  114. 

Baker,  Edward  D.,  his  gifts  as  an 
orator,  303. 

Bancroft,  George,  eulogy  before 
Congress  upon  death  of  Presi- 
dent Lincoln,  385. 

Banks,  Nathaniel  P.,  Speaker,  32; 
character  of,  86-87;  election  as 
Speaker,  87;  appoints  Campbell 
floor  leader,  110;  vivid  picture 
of,  304. 

Barbour,  Philip  P.,  made  an  Asso- 
ciate Justice  of  U.S.  Supreme 
Court,  281;  character  of,  301. 


418 


INDEX 


Barksdale,  William,  estimate  of, 

19,  304. 

Bayly,  Thomas  H.,  character  as 
floor  leader,  120;  fidelity  to 
Cobb,  120. 

Belknap,  Secretary  of  War,  re- 
signs pending  impeachment 
proceedings,  338;  question  of 
Senate's  jurisdiction,  338-40; 
sustained,  341 ;  acquitted  though 
guilt  admitted,  341. 

Bell,  John,  defeated  for  Speaker, 
17;  absence  of,  regretted,  29; 
activity  as  a  Whip,  104;  fisticuff 
in  House,  116;  character  as 
minority  leader,  118. 

Benjamin,  Judah  P.,  estimate  of, 

20,  21. 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  tribute  to 
Lowndes,  113;  opposed  repeal 
of  Missouri  Compromise,  304. 

Bingham,  Henry  H.,  a  father  of 
the  House,  Appendix  D. 

Bingham,  John  A.,  on  impeach- 
ment of  Colfax,  338. 

Black,  Edward  J.,  assaults  Gid- 
dings,  116. 

Blackburn,  Joseph  C.  S.,  aids  in 
revision  of  rules,  194;  denounces 
adoption  of  special  order  by 
majority  vote,  203;  opposes  di- 
vision of  Committee  on  Appro- 
priations, 237-38. 

Blaine,  James  G.,  absence  of,  re- 
gretted, 29;  Credit  Mobilier,  47; 
attacks  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  50; 
withheld  recognition,  58;  net- 
tles Butler,  69;  making  up  com- 
mittees, 69;  familiarity  with  the 
lobby,  70;  thanks  of  House 
passed  under  previous  question, 
74;  when  members  may  not 
vote,  147;  action  of  House  on 
death  of,  154;  reasons  for  refus- 
ing to  count  a  quorum,  159-60; 
on  dilatory  motions,  196-97; 
dodges  the  issue,  197;  stigma- 
tized tactics  used  in  repealing 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  270; 
test  of  ability  in  House  severe, 


296;  on  early  arguments  con- 
cerning the  tariff,  300;  tribute 
to  Conkling,  305;  eulogy  before 
Congress  upon  death  of  Presi- 
dent Garfield,  386. 

Bland,  Richard  P.,  appointed  as 
chairman  of  Committee  on 
Coinage  under  a  bargain,  69. 

Blount,  William,  expelled  from 
Senate,  337;  impeachment  pro- 
ceedings against,  stopped  by  his 
expulsion,  337,  338. 

Blunt,  James  H.,  opposes  division 
of  Committee  on  Appropria- 
tions, 245. 

Bocock,  Thomas  S.,  304. 

Book  of  Estimates,  253,  and  note. 

Boudinot,  Elias,  chairman  of  first 
Committee  on  Rules,  180;  his 
character,  180;  accomplished 
statesman,  300. 

Boutwell,  George  S.,  holds  that 
impeachable  offenses  include 
cases  of  misbehavior,  346. 

Boyd,  Linn,  arbitrary  ruling,  58;  a 
father  of  the  House,  Appendix 
D. 

Breckinridge,  John  C.,  estimate 
of,  22. 

Brooks,  James,  suppressed,  24; 
connection  with  Credit  Mobil- 
ier, 150,  and  note. 

Brooks,  Preston  S.,  assault  upon 
Simmer,  140. 

Bryan,  William  Jennings,  opposed 
counting  silent  members  to 
make  a  quorum,  175. 

Bryce,  James,  opposes  large  legis- 
latures. 8. 

Buchanan,  James,  servility,  89; 
manager  in  Peck  impeachment, 
349;  his  character,  349;  in  Peck 
case  relies  upon  party  bias,  350; 
Jackson's  influence  in  Peck  case, 
350,  351;  as  President,  resents 
a  resolution  of  inquiry,  364; 
House  makes  exhaustive  reply, 
365. 

Buckner,  Aylett  H.,  appointed 
chairman  of  Committee  on 


INDEX 


419 


Banking  and  Currency  under  a 
bargain,  69. 

Burke,  Edmund,  resisted  changes 
in  representation,  3. 

Burleson,  Albert  S.,  Postmaster- 
General,  381;  dispenser  of  pa- 
tronage, 381. 

Burlingame,  Anson,  304. 

Burrows,  Julius  C.,  candidate  for 
Speaker,  77,  note. 

Burton,  Theodore  E.,  a  master  of 
clear  statement,  307;  chairman 
of  Committee  on  Rivers  and 
Harbors  for  eleven  years.  Ap- 
pendix D. 

Busteed,  Richard,  U.S.  District 
Judge,  338;  resigns  pending  im- 
peachment proceedings,  338. 

Butler,  Andrew  P.,  estimate  of,  20. 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.,  on  impeach- 
ment of  Colfax,  338. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  on  previous 
question,  189;  one  of  the  famous 
quintet,  301;  tribute  to  elo- 
quence of  Prentiss,  318. 

Cambreling,  Churchill  C.,  charac- 
ter as  floor  leader,  115. 

Campbell,  George  W.,  duel  with 
Gardenier,  185;  supremacy  in 
debate,  301. 

Campbell,  Lewis  D.,  character  as 
floor  leader,  122;  failure  to  pub- 
lish his  speeches,  123. 

Cannon,  Joseph  G.t  father  of  the 
House,  36,  Appendix  D;  in- 
dulges in  reminiscences,  52; 
committee  appointments,  70; 
opposes  appointment  of  com- 
mittees by  a  board,  80;  friend- 
ship for  Williams,  114;  charac- 
ter as  floor  leader,  131;  resem- 
blances to  Reed,  132;  known  as 
"Uncle  Joe,"  132;  as  to  a  quo- 
rum, 156;  opposes  dividing  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations,  247. 

Carlisle,  John  G.,  conduct  as  a 
contestee,  46;  arbitrary  ruling 
of,  59;  victim  of  obstructionists, 
62;  bargains  with  Buckner  and 


Bland,  69;  opposes  appoint- 
ment of  committees  by  a  board, 
80;  use  of  power,  85;  as  to  a 
quorum,  156;  when  he  counted 
House  to  find  presence  of  quo- 
rum, 157;  his  practice  encour- 
ages a  disappearing  quorum, 
164;  his  sincerity,  164;  de- 
nounces adoption  of  special  or- 
der by  majority  vote,  203,  205; 
his  able  decisions,  205;  the  slave 
of  filibusters,  205;  given  loving- 
cup  by  minority  members,  205; 
rearranges  "order  of  business," 
219-20;  refuses  to  demote 
Randall,  242;  his  contested 
election  case,  328-30. 

Catchings,  Thomas  C.,  character 
of,  176-77;  presents  rule  for 
counting  silent  members  to 
make  a  quorum,  177;  his  tact- 
ful speech,  177. 

Chairman  of  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  selected  by  ballot,  47; 
later  by  Speaker,  47. 

Chaplain  of  House,  election  of, 
37;  duty  and  pay  of,  98;  how 
employed,  98;  effort  to  abolish 
the  office,  99. 

Chase,  Chief  Justice,  presides  at 
impeachment  trial  of  President 
Johnson,  335;  Senate  fears  in- 
fluence of,  335;  declines  to  re- 
quire oath,  336;  questions  right 
to  decide  on  admissibility  of 
proof,  336;  appears  at  trial  in 
robe,  337;  sworn  by  an  Associ- 
ate Justice,  337. 

Chase,  Samuel,  Associate  Justice 
of  U.S.  Supreme  Court,  332; 
his  impeachment  moved,  332; 
elaborate  preparations  for  trial, 
335;  he  attends,  335;  claim  of 
House  managers,  345;  his  char- 
acter, 348;  Randolph's  partisan 
prejudice,  348;  Jefferson's  influ- 
ence, 349;  acquitted,  349. 

Cherokee  Strip,  location  of,  40. 

Cheves,  Langdon,  of  the  famous 
quintet,  301. 


420 


INDEX 


Choate,  Rufus,  some  of  his  col- 
leagues, 301. 

Cilley,  Jonathan,  duel  with  Graves, 
139;  funeral  of,  153-54. 

Clark,  Champ,  head  of  minority 
on  Ways  and  Means,  134;  less 
authority  as  Speaker,  83,  135; 
a  veteran  member,  306;  an  able 
debater,  307. 

Clay,  Clement  C.,  estimate  of,  20. 

Clay,  Henry,  absence  of,  regret- 
ted, 29;  speaks  in  Committee 
of  Whole,  51 ;  peculiarity  in  vot- 
ing, 52;  gives  no  reasons  for 
decisions  as  Speaker,  54-55; 
character  of,  71;  qualities  as 
Speaker,  83-84;  power  hi  War 
of  1812,  85;  his  standard,  86- 
87;  courtesy  of,  112;  a  rebuke  to 
Randolph,  112;  on  integrity  of 
members,  150;  as  to  a  quorum, 
155;  favors  previous  question, 
187;  renders  it  an  unwieldy  mo- 
tion, 189;  on  the  question  of 
consideration,  223;  packs  the 
Committee  on  Manufactures, 
233;  of  the  famous  quintet,  301 ; 
causes  selection  of  Capitol's  east 
portico  for  place  of  President's 
inauguration,  354;  leads  House 
in  its  sympathy  for  South 
American  republics,  368;  makes 
House  independent  of  the  Pres- 
ident, 374-75. 

Clay,  Joseph,  floor  leader,  125. 

Clerk  of  the  House,  makes  up  roll 
of  members  elect,  12;  power  of, 
12;  distrust  of,  13;  action  in 
contested  election  case,  14,  15; 
power  increased,  22;  why  power 
acquiesced  in,  25;  calls  House 
to  order  at  its  organization,  30; 
election  of,  37;  holds  office  until 
successor  qualifies,  91;  how 
elected,  91;  compared  with 
clerk  of  House  of  Commons,  91, 
93;  routine  duties,  92;  appoint- 
ees and  salary,  92;  his  peculiar 
prestige,  93. 

Cleveland,   President,   views  re- 


specting right  of  veto,  358;  his 
use  of  the  veto,  358;  use  of  pa- 
tronage, 380. 

Clingman,  Thomas  L.,  on  Brooks's 
assault  on  Sumner,  140. 

Clymer,  George,  signer  of  Consti- 
tution, 300. 

Cobb,  Howell,  estimate  of,  22; 
elected  Speaker,  33;  author  of 
plan  for  drawing  seats,  39;  con- 
duct under  charges,  46;  arbi- 
trary ruling,  58. 

Cochran,  Bourke,  opposes  thanks 
to  Henderson,  75. 

Colfax,  Schuyler,  conduct  as 
Speaker,  47 ;  courtesy  of,  74 ;  con- 
nection with  Credit  Mobilier, 
150,  and  note;  reasons  for  refus- 
ing to  count  a  quorum,  159; 
question  of  impeachment,  338; 
reason  for  dropping  matter,  338. 

Committee  on  Appropriations, 
when  created,  235;  efforts  to 
divide  it,  236;  loses  river  and 
harbor  items,  236-|-38;  also  agri- 
cultural appropriations,  238; 
jealousy  of  other  committees, 
239;  dislike  of  Holman  amend- 
ment, 239;  resentment  against 
Randall,  239;  five  bills  taken 
from  it,  242-49;  six  bills  remain 
under  its  jurisdiction,  242,  and 
note. 

Committee  of  Committees,  cre- 
ated, 81;  its  purpose,  82;  its 
procedure,  82;  pronounced  a 
failure,  90. 

Committee  of  Conference,  227, 
283;  how  formed,  284;  meetings 
of,  284;  may  hold  hearings,  284; 
powers  of,  285;  report  of  man- 
agers, 285;  highly  privileged, 
285;  unwise  to  instruct,  286. 

Committee  of  Interstate  Com- 
merce, separated  from  manu- 
factures, 233. 

Committee  of  Manufactures,  sep- 
arated from  Interstate  Com- 
merce, 233;  rival  of  Ways  and 
Means,  233. 


INDEX 


421 


Committee  on  Rules,  report  of,  in 
1789,  180;  often  not  appointed, 
182;  great  power  given  to,  191; 
its  reports  adopted  by  majority 
vote,  191;  its  power  withdrawn, 
192;  Speaker  made  its  chair- 
man, 193;  limitation  of  its  au- 
thority, 193;  is  non-partisan, 
193;  made  a  standing  commit- 
tee, 195;  its  authority  increased, 
196;  reports  adopted  by  ma- 
jority vote,  197;  its  special  re- 
ports make  it  partisan,  197;  its 
dominating  power,  204,  209; 
Reed's  and  Crisp's  methods 
compared,  207;  increasing  pow- 
er of,  210;  plans  to  increase  its 
membership,  211;  enlarged  and 
made  elective,  212;  Speaker 
eliminated,  212;  reports  in 
favor  of  dividing  Ways  and 
Means,  235;  also  of  dividing 
Committee  on  Appropriations, 
242. 

Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
privileged  to  report  at  any  tune, 
230-31;  made  a  standing  com- 
mittee, 231;  its  rival,  233;  its 
prototype,  234;  its  control,  234; 
its  chairman  the  titular  floor 
leader,  234;  its  wide  jurisdic- 
tion, 235;  its  division  into  four 
committees,  235. 

Committee  of  the  Whole,  early 
practice  hi,  182,  256;  its  char- 
acter, 256;  absence  of  roll  calls 
and  motions,  256;  debate  in, 
256-57;  history  of,  257;  its  pro- 
totype, 258;  its  jurisdiction,  260- 
62;  method  of  House  passing 
into,  262-63;  selection  of  chair- 
man, 263;  duties  of,  263-64; 
quorum  in,  265;  general  debate 
in,  266;  rules  governing  five- 
minute  debate,  266;  evolution 
of  present  procedure,  267;  tac- 
tics used  to  repeal  Missouri 
Compromise,  268-70;  stigma- 
tized by  Blaine,  270;  practice 
destroyed,  271;  procedure  in 


passing  from  Committee  to 
House,  271. 

Congressional  Debates,  number 
and  contents  of  volumes,  101, 
note. 

Congressional  Globe,  its  establish- 
ment, 101;  number  of  volumes, 
101,  note. 

Congressional  Record,  Speaker's 
control  of,  54;  number  of  vol- 
umes, 101,  note;  its  establish- 
ment, 102;  its  purpose,  103; 
what  it  is,  104. 

Conkling,  Roscoe,  Elaine's  trib- 
ute to,  305. 

Constitution  makers,  avoid  Brit- 
ish system  of  representation,  3. 

Contested  elections,  Broad  Seal 
case,  15;  provision  of  Constitu- 
tion, 313;  early  impartiality, 
813;  case  of  Anthony  Wayne, 
313;  uniform  mode  of  proce- 
dure, 314;  basis  of  Statute  of 
1798,  314;  early  partisanship, 
315;  continued  violation  of 
equity  principles,  316;  case  of 
Prentiss,  316-19;  action  of  a 
hold-over  clerk,  319;  efforts  to 
reform  practice,  319;  present 
procedure  based  on  Act  of 
1851,  320-21;  not  binding  on 
House,  321;  practice  violates 
act,  322;  Reed's  comments  up- 
on, 323;  spirit  governing  deci- 
sions, 324;  only  three  instances 
of  minority  benefiting,  324; 
partisanship  multiplies  con- 
tests, 324;  augments  expense, 
325;  famous  case  of  Smith  vs. 
Jackson,  326-27;  practice  in 
House  of  Commons,  327-28; 
Reed's  plan  to  conform  to  it, 
328;  case  of  Speaker  Carlisle, 
328-29. 

Corwin,  Thomas,  oratorical  power 
of,  302. 

Counting  a  quorum,  165-79. 

Courts,  James  C.,  clerk  of  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations,  98; 
high  character  of,  98. 


422 


INDEX 


Cox,  Samuel  S.,  on  power  of 
clerk,  24;  never  muzzled,  48; 
denounces  adoption  of  a  special 
order  by  majority  vote,  203; 
moves  the  division  of  Commit- 
tee on  Ways  and  Means,  235. 

Creswell,  John  A.  J.,  305. 

Crisp,  Charles  F.,  rebukes  Reed, 
49;  bantered  by  Reed,  51;  at- 
tempt to  address  House,  51; 
Reed  refuses  thanks,  73;  influ- 
ence of  their  disturbed  relations, 
114;  opposes  counting  silent 
members  to  make  a  quorum,  172; 
opens  the  way  to  make  him 
Speaker,  172;  refuses  to  follow 
the  precedent,  172;  proposes 
fining  unexcused  members,  174; 
Reed's  retort,  174;  forced  to 
count,  174-75;  his  method  com- 
pared with  Reed's,  174-75; 
opposes  Reed  rules,  206;  meth- 
ods compared  with  Reed's,  207; 
conducts  Carlisle's  election  case, 
329. 

Gushing,  Caleb,  criticism  of  clerk, 
13. 

Dalzell,  John,  calls  up  contested 
election  case,  165;  ability  of, 
165;  elected  chairman  of  Com- 
mittee on  Rules,  212;  character 
of,  307;  a  father  of  the  House, 
Appendix  D. 

Dana,  Charles  A.,  Assistant  Sec- 
retary of  War,  379;  how  he  se- 
cured three  votes  in  House, 
379. 

Davis,  Henry  Winter,  estimate 
of,  21;  ability  of,  89;  refuses  to 
support  Banks,  89;  advocates 
Monroe  Doctrine,  369-72;  re- 
signs chairmanship  of  Commit- 
tee on  Foreign  Affairs,  371; 
Lincoln  quiets  him,  372. 

Davis,  Jefferson,  estimate  of,  21. 

Dawes,  Henry  L.,  a  floor  leader, 
108;  head  of  Ways  and  Means, 
127;  his  leadership,  128;  when 
members  may  not  vote,  147;  re- 


markable evidence  of  skill,  298; 
a  father  of  the  House,  Appen- 
dix D. 

Debate  and  debaters,  288-312; 
five-minute  debate,  256,  291; 
rules  limiting  debate,  288;  gen- 
eral debate,  289;  little  attempt 
to  silence  members,  290;  unde- 
livered speeches,  290;  revised 
remarks,  291 ;  reason  for  routine 
discussion,  291;  vigorous  discus- 
sion, 292;  qualities  needed,  293; 
task  of  a  chairman,  293;  a  par- 
liamentary orator,  294;  great 
debaters  made  by  practice,  294; 
illustrations  of,  294;  great  de- 
baters rare,  295;  success  uncer- 
tain in  House  of  Commons, 
295-96;  severe  test  in  House, 
296;  watchful  floor  leaders,  297; 
dignified  orators,  298;  the  real 
debater,  298;  illustrations,  298- 
99;  great  debaters  come  in 
groups,  299-309;  fitted  espe- 
cially for  service  in  House,  308. 

Dingley,  Nelson,  head  of  Ways 
and  Means,  127;  his  tariff  bill, 
127;  comment  of  Reed,  128; 
funeral  of,  154. 

Dolliver,  Jonathan  P.,  306. 

Doorkeeper  of  House,  election  of, 
37;  holds  office  until  successor 
qualifies,  91;  how  elected,  91; 
duties  of,  96;  appointees  and 
salary,  97. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  his  dominat- 
ing leadership,  303;  sketch  of, 
303. 

Duels  and  challenges,  McDuffie 
and  Metcalfe,  115;  Graves  and 
Cilley,  139-40;  Campbell  and 
Gardenier,  185;  Eppes  chal- 
lenges Randolph,  187. 

Dunnell,  Mark  H.,  candidate  for 
Speaker,  77,  note. 

Durrell,  Edward  H.f  U.S.  District 
Judge,  338;  resigns  pending  im- 
peachment proceedings,  338. 

Dwight,  John  W.,  activity  of,  as 
the  Whip,  105. 


INDEX 


423 


Ely,  William,  ignores  limitation  of 
previous  question,  184. 

Eppes,  John  W.,  absence  of,  re- 
gretted, 29;  activity  of,  as  Whip, 
104;  effective  debater,  186; 
marries  Jefferson's  daughter, 
186;  challenges  Randolph,  187; 
hesitates  to  move  previous 
question,  187. 

Evans,  George,  absence  of,  re- 
gretted, 29;  character  as  a  de- 
bater, 116-17. 

Everett,  Edward,  301. 

Father  of  the  House,  35;  Appen- 
dix D. 

Fenton,  Reuben  E.,  304. 

Fessenden,  William  Pitt,  brief 
service  in  House,  302. 

Fillmore,  Millard,  head  of  Ways 
and  Means,  127;  character  of, 
127;  tribute  to  eloquence  of 
Prentiss,  318;  his  use  of  the 
veto  when  President,  358. 

Findlay,  William,  a  father  of  the 
House,  Appendix  D. 

Fitzgerald,  John  J.,  aids  minority 
leader,  208;  startling  statement 
as  to  increase  in  appropriations, 
251;  condemns  method  of  ap- 
propriating money,  252;  plan 
for  encouraging  economy,  254. 

Floor  leader,  who  is  the,  107;  next 
to  Speaker  in  influence,  107; 
qualities  needed,  109;  often  in- 
fluences tone  of  debate,  111. 

Former  members  of  House,  action 
on  death  of,  154;  admitted  to 
floor  of  House,  195. 

Forney,  John  W.,  character  of,  18; 
clerk  of  House,  19;  firm  ruling 
of,  19;  opinion  of  Southern 
members,  21-22. 

Franking  privilege,  its  abuse,  151- 
52. 

Frye,  William  P.,  transfer  to  Sen- 
ate, 76;  aids  in  revision  of  rules 
of  House,  194. 

Gardenier,   Barent,   capacity   to 


talk,  185;  his  duel  with  Camp- 
bell, 185;  opposes  previous 
question,  187. 

Garfield,  James  A.,  absence  of, 
regretted,  29;  candidate  for 
Speaker,  32;  a  floor  leader,  108; 
opposes  counting  a  quorum, 
160;  aids  in  revision  of  rules, 
194;  watchful  as  a  floor  leader, 
297;  rouses  the  House  and 
country  in  brief  speech,  298;  his 
use  of  the  veto  when  President, 
358;  upon  his  death,  House  pays 
worthy  tribute,  386. 

Garland,  Hugh  A.,  record  as 
clerk,  14. 

George,  Henry,  his  book  as  a  pub- 
lic document,  152;  sent  under 
frank,  152. 

Gerry,  Elbridge,  signer  of  Consti- 
tution, 300. 

Gholson,  Thomas,  favored  previ- 
ous question,  187. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R.,  opposes  par- 
tisan committees,  67;  defeats 
Winthrop,  68;  is  dropped  from 
Committee  on  Territories,  68; 
muscular  physique,  302;  a  fa- 
ther of  the  House,  Appendix  D. 

Gladstone,  William  E.,  power  as  a 
speaker,  29. 

Grant,  President,  suggests  Elec- 
toral Commission  Act,  359;  re- 
sents a  resolution  of  inquiry,  364. 

Graves,  William  J.,  duel  with 
Cilley,  139. 

Grinnell,  Josiah  G.,  imputes  cow- 
ardice to  Rousseau,  138;  as- 
saulted, 138;  his  course  disap- 
proved, 138. 

Griswold,  John  A.,  305. 

Griswold,  Roger,  as  a  floor  leader, 
111;  encounter  with  Lyon,  111. 

Grosvenor,  Charles  H.,  an  effec- 
tive debater,  307;  a  veteran 
member,  307. 

Grow,  Galusha  A.,  why  elected 
Speaker,  45;  encounter  with 
Keitt,  45,  125;  as  to  a  quorum, 
155. 


424 


INDEX 


Haile,  William,  length  of  the 
average  speech,  189. 

Hale,  Eugene,  suppressed  by  clerk, 
24;  absence  of,  regretted,  290. 

Hale,  Robert  S.f  Stevens's  retort, 
146. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  regrets 
making  positive  reply,  366. 

Hammett,  William  EL,  saves 
Giddings  from  assault,  116. 

Hardwicke,  Lord  Chancellor,  his 
reasons  for  changing  his  mind, 
171. 

Hanner,  Alfred  C.,  a  father  of  the 
House,  Appendix  D. 

Harper,  Robert  Goodloe,  as  floor 
leader,  111;  ability  of,  112;  de- 
fends Justice  Chase,  112;  su- 
premacy in  debate,  301. 

Harrison,  William  Henry,  Presi- 
dent, use  of  the  veto,  358;  re- 
spect paid  upon  his  death,  384. 

Hay,  John,  eulogy  before  Con- 
gress upon  death  of  President 
McKinley,  386. 

Henderson,  David  B.,  inconsider- 
ate remark  of,  59;  thanks  of 
House  passed  under  previous 
question,  74;  action  of  House  on 
death  of,  154-55. 

Hepburn,  William  P.,  opponent  of 
rules,  38;  character  as  a  debater, 
307;  a  veteran  member,  307. 

Herbert,  Hilary  A.,  opposes  ap- 
pointment of  committees  by  a 
board,  80;  opposes  division  of 
Committee  on  Appropriations, 
245. 

Hewitt,  Abram  S.,  favors  ap- 
pointment of  committees  by  a 
board,  79. 

Hill,  Benjamin  H.,  305. 

Hill,  David  B.,  in  N.Y.  Senate 
counts  silent  members  to  make 
a  quorum,  162;  opinion  of,  163. 

Hiscock,  Frank,  candidate  for 
Speaker,  77,  note;  with  Carlisle 
on  Committee  Rules,  242;  joins 
in  report  to  divide  Committee 
on  Appropriations,  243. 


Hitt,  Robert  R.,  character  of. 
307;  cradled  among  statesmen, 
308. 

Hoar,  George  P.,  on  sale  of  cadet- 
ships,  150;  comment  on  election 
cases,  324 ;  argument  in  Belknap 
impeachment  case,  339-40. 

Holman,  William  S.,  suppressed, 
23;  favors  appointment  of  com- 
mittees by  a  board,  79;  known 
as  "watchdog  of  the  Treasury," 
245;  opposes  division  of  Com- 
mittee on  Appropriations,  245. 

Holman  amendment,  the,  239. 

"Holy  Wednesday,"  224. 

"Horizontal  Bill,"  241. 

House  bills,  when  House  controls 
reference,  63;  early  scrutiny  of, 
181;  how  introduced,  181;  dis- 
position of,  182;  present  method 
of  introduction,  273;  how  re- 
ferred, 273;  printing  of,  273; 
distributed,  273;  in  committee, 
274;  when  reported,  274;  taken 
up  in  House,  274;  must  be  read 
three  times,  274;  question  of 
consideration,  274-75;  disposi- 
tion of  appropriation  bills,  275; 
procedure  in  other  cases,  275; 
under  suspension  of  rules,  275- 
76;  by  special  order,  276;  privi- 
leged bills,  276;  motions  that 
may  intervene,  276-79;  engross- 
ment of,  279;  motion  to  recom- 
mit, 279;  vote  on,  280;  title  of 
bill,  280;  motion  to  reconsider, 
280;  its  curious  history,  281-82; 
disposition  of  bills  after  pas- 
sage, 282-83;  conference  com- 
mittee, 283-86;  procedure  after 
passing  both  Houses,  286;  pre- 
sented to  President,  286;  result 
of  his  non-approval,  286;  his 
veto,  how  treated,  287. 

House  calendar,  adopted,  195; 
bills  referred  to,  195;  when 
created,  218;  its  purpose,  218; 
called  "legislative  graveyard," 
219. 

House  employees,  95;  number  of, 


INDEX 


425 


95;  how  determined,  95;  com- 
pensation, 95;  not  in  classified 
service,  97. 

House,  floor  of,  those  entitled  to 
admission  to,  96. 

House  Journal,  its  contents,  100. 

House  library,  subdivision  of 
Library  of  Congress,  98;  ap- 
pointment of  librarian  and  as- 
sistants, 98;  contents  of,  98. 

House  members.  See  Representa- 
tives. 

House  of  Commons,  controlled  by 
powerful  and  wealthy  men,  3; 
system  of  representation,  3; 
election  of  Speaker  in,  34; 
Speaker's  dress,  36;  formal  en- 
trance of  Speaker,  36;  powers 
of  Speaker,  43. 

House  official  reporters,  how  ap- 
pointed, 100;  number  of,  100. 

House  of  Representatives,  organ- 
ization of,  26;  what  is  the 
House,  27;  obsolete  customs, 
28;  when  organized,  30;  "Fa- 
ther" of,  35;  observance  of  Sun- 
day, 100;  sale  of  liquors,  100; 
breach  of  privilege,  139;  offens- 
es against,  139;  challenges,  139; 
may  punish  for  contempt,  143; 
privileged  questions,  what  con- 
stitute, 144-45;  lobbying,  147- 
49;  action  on  decease  of  mem- 
bers, 153;  funerals  in,  154;  ac- 
tion on  decease  of  former  mem- 
bers, 154;  quorum  of,  155-58; 
absence  of  a  quorum,  157-58; 
silence  breaks  a  quorum,  159; 
favorite  form  of  obstruction, 
162,  164;  sustains  the  count  of 
silent  members  to  make  a  quo- 
rum, 165-66;  pandemonium  in, 
167;  refuses  to  follow  precedent, 
172;  readopts  it,  174;  rarely 
without  a  quorum,  176;  opposes 
limitation  of  previous  question, 
185;  destroys  dilatory  motions, 
198-202;  passes  special  order  by 
majority  vote,  203;  refuses  to 
adopt'  rules,  206;  a  temporary 


procedure,  209-10;  test  of  abil- 
ity in,  296;  attends  impeach- 
ment trials,  332;  counting  elec- 
toral vote,  353;  rules  govern- 
ing when  House  elects  a  Presi- 
dent, 353-54;  its  participation 
in  President's  inauguration, 
354-55;  selection  of  Capitol's 
east  portico  for  ceremony,  354; 
President  may  convene  House, 
355;  procedure  after  its  organ- 
ization, 355;  at  close  of  session, 
356;  delivery  of  President's 
message,  356;  reception  and 
disposal  of,  356;  secret  sessions, 
356-57;  bills  sent  to  President, 
357;  his  disposition  of  them, 
357;  veto  messages,  358-59; 
resolutions  of  inquiry,  360;  pro- 
priety of  cabinet  officers  occu- 
pying seats  in  House,  261- 
62;  strained  relations  between 
House  and  President,  362-65; 
requests  for  information  relat- 
ing to  treaties,  365-66;  House 
stubbornly  maintains  its  right, 
366;  subjects  entrusted  to  Con- 
gress, 367;  to  fix  rates  of  duty, 
368;  sympathy  of  House  with 
nations  seeking  independence, 
368-69;  French  invasion  of 
Mexico,  369-72;  when  House 
and  President  are  in  political 
accord,  372-73:  independence 
of  House  depends  upon  spirit  of 
leaders,  373;  when  subservient 
to  President,  373,  375;  Clay 
made  it  dominate  President, 
374;  courage  of  House  in  1875, 
376;  at  other  times,  377;  House 
pays  proper  tribute  upon  death 
of  President,  384;  on  decease  of 
a  former  President,  386-87. 

House  police,  94;  duties  of,  94;  ap- 
pointment of,  94. 

Houston,  George  S.,  estimate  of, 
21;  character  as  floor  leader, 
121. 

Hunter,  Robert  M.  T.,  character- 
ized by  Adams,  18;  elected 


426 


INDEX 


Speaker,  18;  defends  partisan 
committees,  67. 

Hunton,  Eppa,  opposes  counting 
a  quorum,  161. 

Impeachment  proceedings,  con- 
fined largely  to  judges,  331; 
Constitution  alone  governs, 
331;  how  set  in  motion,  332; 
complaints  referred  to  Judiciary 
Committee,  333;  respondents 
invited  to  hearings,  333;  rules  of 
evidence,  333,  337;  disposition 
of  cases  examined,  333;  proce- 
dure after  indictment,  333;  how 
House  attends  trials,  333;  prac- 
tice as  to  attendance  of  respond- 
ents, 334;  the  Senate's  prepara- 
tion for,  334;  its  character  as  a 
trial  body,  335-36;  mooted 
jurisdiction  if  respondent  re- 
signs, 338-42;  decision  in  Bel- 
knap  and  Archbold  cases,  341- 
42;  what  constitute  high  crimes 
and  misdemeanors,  342-46; 
judgment  of  the  Senate,  346- 
47;  in  President  Johnson's  case, 
347;  opinion  of  the  seven  recu- 
sant Republicans,  347;  partisan 
bias  disclosed  in  impeachment 
cases,  347-48;  in  Chase  case, 
348;  in  Pickering  case,  348;  in 
Johnson  case,  351-52;  opinion 
of  Rhodes,  352. 

Intoxicating  liquors,  sale  of,  pro- 
hibited in  Capitol,  100. 

Jackson,  President,  resents  a  reso- 
lution of  inquiry,  364. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  adoption  of 
his  Parliamentary  Practice,  182; 
his  use  of  the  veto  when  Presi- 
dent, 358;  as  Secretary  of  State 
appears  before  the  House,  361; 
his  use  of  patronage,  378. 

Johnson,  President,  impeachment 
of,  moved,  332;  articles  of,  346; 
House  wrests  control  from,  376. 

Johnson,  Richard  M.,  of  the  fa- 
mous quintet,  301. 


Johnson,  William  Cost,  witty  re- 
mark, 17. 

Joint  select  committee,  226. 

Joint  standing  committee,  227. 

Jones,  George  W.,  estimate  of,  21; 
acts  as  second  in  Graves-Cilley 
duel,  139. 

Jones,  John  W.,  Adams  opposes 
thanks  to,  73;  character  as  floor 
leader,  117. 

Jones,  William  A.,  a  father  of  the 
House,  Appendix  D. 

Kasson,  John  A.,  305;  candidate 
for  Speaker,  77. 

Keifer,  J.  Warren,  startling  ruling 
of,  60;  nominated  for  Speaker, 
77;  election  of,  77. 

Keitt,  Lawrence  M .,  estimate  of, 
21;  encounter  with  Grow,  45, 
125. 

Kelley,  William  D.,  a  father  of  the 
House,  35,  Appendix  D;  op- 
poses appointment  of  commit- 
tees by  a  board,  80;  head  of 
Ways  and  Means,  127;  funeral 
of,  154. 

Kernan,  Francis,  305. 

Kerr,  Michael  C.,  dies  in  office, 
153;  marks  of  respect  to, 
153. 

Kilgore,  Constantine  B.,  opposes 
counting  silent  members  to 
make  a  quorum,  175;  Quixotic 
character  of  speech,  175,  176. 

Knott,  Proctor,  305. 

"Legislative  graveyard,"  219. 

Lewis,  Dixon  H.,  early  friend  of 
Franklin  Pierce,  302;  a  father  of 
the  House,  Appendix  D. 

Library  of  Congress,  supervision 
of,  98. 

Lincoln,  President,  use  of  the  veto, 
358;  views  respecting  execu- 
tive influence,  358;  display  of 
tact,  372;  use  of  patronage, 
379;  upon  his  death,  House  pays 
worthy  tribute,  385. 

Lobbying,  when  proper  and  im- 


INDEX 


427 


proper,  147-49;  President  Wil- 
son's view,  149. 

Lowndes,  William,  absence  of, 
regretted,  29;  floor  leader,  108, 
111;  Benton's  tribute  to,  113; 
of  the  famous  quintet,  301. 

Lyon,  Matthew,  encounter  with 
Griswold,  111;  opposes  previ- 
ous question,  187. 

McCall,  Samuel  W.,  307. 

McDuffie,  George,  character  as 
floor  leader,  114-15;  declines  to 
fight  with  rifles,  115. 

McKay,  James  J.,  character  as 
floor  leader,  118. 

McKinley,  William,  absence  of, 
from  House  regretted,  29;  head 
of  Ways  and  Means,  127;  his 
tariff  bill,  127;  manner  of  speak- 
ing, 128;  Reed's  dislike  of,  246; 
character  as  a  speaker,  246;  op- 
poses division  of  Committee  on 
Appropriations,  246;  not  a  floor 
leader,  246;  an  ideal  chairman 
of  Ways  and  Means,  293;  use  of 
the  veto  when  President,  359: 
use  of  patronage,  381;  upon  his 
death,  House  pays  worthy  trib- 
ute, 386. 

McMillin,  Benton,  characteristics 
of,  59;  floor  leader,  126. 

McPherson,  Edward,  action  as 
clerk,  24. 

Macaulay,  Thomas  Babington, 
his  description  of  a  noisy  scene 
in  House  of  Commons,  167. 

Mace,  description  of,  37;  position 
indicates  House  in  session,  38; 
symbol  of  authority,  94. 

Macon,  Nathaniel,  votes  to  make 
two- thirds  majority,  52;  char- 
acteristics of,  68;  dominated  by 
Randolph,  76;  failure  to  lead, 
84;  counts  House  to  find  pres- 
ence of  quorum,  157;  makes 
House  subservient  to  President, 
873-74. 

Madison,  James,  member  of  first 
Committee  on  Rules,  180;  use 


of  Committee  of  Whole,  260; 
the  Constitution-maker,  300. 

Mann,  James  R.,  progress  to  floor 
leadership,  132;  character  of  his 
work,  133;  minority's  candidate 
for  Speaker,  133;  triumph  of 
preparedness,  299;  among  those 
of  long  service,  307. 

Marshall,  Thomas  F.,  oratorical 
ability,  301. 

Mason,  James  M.,  estimate  of,  21. 

Mason,  John  Y.,  early  friend  of 
Franklin  Pierce,  302. 

Members  of  House.  See  Repre- 
sentatives. 

Menifee,  Richard  H.,  great  prom- 
ise of,  301. 

Metcalfe,  Thomas,  challenges  Mc- 
Duffie, 115. 

Mills,  Roger  Q.,  Speaker  declines 
to  hear  him,  48;  favors  appoint- 
ment of  committees  by  a  board, 
79;  floor  leader,  129. 

Millson,  John  S.,  criticism  of 
clerk,  13;  opposes  repeal  of 
Missouri  Compromise,  304. 

Morning  hour.  See  Order  of  busi- 


Morrill,  Justin  S.,  floor  leader, 
127;  becomes  chairman  of  Ways 
and  Means,  235;  author  of  the 
tariff  bill  of  1861,  235;  his  se- 
vere labors,  236. 

Morrison,  William  H.,  favors  ap- 
pointment of  committees  by  a 
board,  79;  floor  leader,  129; 
character  of,  240;  aids  to  make 
Kerr  Speaker,  240;  chairman  of 
Ways  and  Means,  240;  deposed 
by  Randall,  240;  again  heads 
Ways  and  Means,  241;  called 
"Horizontal  Bill,"  241;  beaten 
by  Randall,  241;  fails  to  demote 
Randall,  242;  forces  a  division 
of  Committee  on  Appropria- 
tions, 242. 

Motion  on  consideration,  274-75; 
when  not  in  order,  275. 

Motion  to  adjourn,  276;  its  pre- 
cedence, 276. 


428 


INDEX 


Motion  to  amend,  278;  its  pur- 
pose, 278. 

Motion  to  lay  on  the  table,  276; 
its  drastic  character,  276-77. 

Motion  to  postpone  indefinitely, 
278;  its  insidious  character,  278. 

Motion  to  postpone  to  a  day  cer- 
tain, 278;  its  purpose,  278. 

Motion  to  recommit,  279;  with 
instructions,  279;  that  commit- 
tee report  forthwith,  279;  rea- 
son for  this  peculiar  procedure, 
279-80. 

Motion  to  reconsider,  280;  its  dis- 
turbing character,  280;  curious 
history  of,  281-82. 

Motion  to  refer,  278;  its  purpose, 
278;  if  with  instructions,  278. 

Nation  (New  York),  encourages 
obstruction  until  rules  are 
adopted,  171. 

New  Jersey,  its  exclusion  from 
House,  15. 

Newspapers,  charges  in,  142; 
when  involve  breach  of  priv- 
ilege, 142;  lobbying  by,  149. 

Newton,  Thomas,  longest  service 
as  chairman,  229,  note;  a  father 
of  the  House,  Appendix  D. 

Obstruction,  purpose  of,  183-84; 
results  of,  184;  its  earliest  form, 
184;  destructive  of  business, 
196.  • 

Office,  term  defined,  11. 

Office  building,  erection  of,  40. 

Officer  of  the  U.S.  defined,  11. 

Olmstead,  Marlin  E.,  most  effec- 
tive reasoner,  308;  manager  of 
impeachment  of  Swayne,  344; 
opposed  theory  that  offense 
must  be  indictable,  344. 

O'Neil,  Charles,  a  father  of  the 
House,  Appendix  D. 

Onslow,  Speaker  of  House  of  Com- 
mons, 201;  upholds  minority's 
rights,  201. 

Order  of  business,  the,  evolution 
of.  213-14;  disposition  of  peti- 


tions, 215-16;  privileged  bills, 
216;  special  order,  216;  ques- 
tion of  privilege,  216;  days  set 
apart  for  specified  business, 
216-17;  introduction  of  bills, 
217;  disposition  of  bills  and  re- 
ports, 218;  changes  of  "morning 
hour,"  "unfinished  business," 
"the  Speaker's  table,"  219-21; 
Reed's  rearrangement  of,  220- 
22;  what  may  interrupt,  222; 
question  of  consideration,  223; 
what  is  in  order  under  present 
rules,  224-25. 

Orr,  James  L.,  estimate  of,  21; 
drops  Giddings  from  Commit- 
tee on  Territories,  68;  appoints 
committee  hostile  to  Lecompton 
constitution,  69. 

Orth,  Godlove  S.,  candidate  for 
Speaker,  77;  estimate  of,  77; 
proposes  appointment  of  com- 
mittees by  a  board,  77. 

Outhwaite,  Joseph  H.,  floor  leader, 
127;  favors  counting  silent 
members  to  make  a  quorum, 
176. 

Payne,  Sereno  E.,  head  of  Ways 
and  Means,  127;  character  of, 
128;  funeral  of,  154;  remarkable 
influence  of  a  single  speech,  299; 
a  father  of  the  House,  Appen- 
dix D. 

Peck,  James  H.,  U.S.  District 
Judge,  346;  why  impeached, 
349;  Wai  defended,  350;  point 
case  turned  on,  350;  President 
Jackson's  influence,  350;  ac- 
quitted, 350. 

Pennington,  William,  candidate 
for  Speaker,  88;  character  of, 
88;  elected,  89;  appoints  Sher- 
man floor  leader,  110. 

Peters,  John  A.,  on  impeachment 
of  Colfax,  338. 

Petitions  to  the  House,  absorb  the 
time,  215;  cause  of  their  multi- 
plying, 215;  restricted  to  Mon- 
days, 215;  final  disposition,  216. 


INDEX 


429 


Peyton,  Bailie,  threatens  to  kill  a 
witness,  116. 

Phelps,  John  S.,  a  father  of  the 
House,  Appendix  D. 

Pierce,  Franklin,  his  servility,  89; 
as  a  young  man,  302;  use  of 
patronage  when  President,  880. 

Poland,  Luke  P.,  accounts  for  his 
absence,  179. 

Polk,  James  K.,  opposition  to  ap- 
portionment, 6;  changes  front, 
7;  appointments  of,  72;  efforts 
to  thank,  72;  suddenly  takes  the 
chair,  114;  character  of,  318;  his 
partisanship,  318;  stung  by 
Prentiss,  319;  when  President, 
relies  upon  Washington's  re- 
fusal to  respond  to  request  of 
House,  366;  Adams  stubbornly 
stands  for  House's  right,  366. 

Porter,  Peter  B.,  favors  previous 
question,  188. 

Postmaster  of  House,  election  of, 
37. 

Potter,  Clarkson  N.,  on  impeach- 
ment of  Colfax,  338. 

Prentiss,  Sergeant  S.,  oratory  of, 
72;  opposes  thanks  to  Polk,  72; 
his  sparkling  colleagues,  301; 
contested  election  case,  316;  his 
eloquence,  317;  stinging  criti- 
cism of  Polk,  319. 

President,  relations  of  House  with, 
counting  electoral  vote,  353; 
rules  governing  when  House 
elects,  353-54;  inauguration  of 
President,  354-55;  selection  of 
east  portico  of  Capitol  for  in- 
auguration ceremony,  354;  par- 
ticipation of  House  in  inaug- 
uration, 355;  President  may 
convene  House,  355;  proce- 
dure after  its  organization,  355; 
at  the  close  of  a  session,  356; 
delivery  of  President's  mes- 
sage, reception  and  disposal  of, 
356;  bills  sent  to  President, 
his  disposition  of  them,  357; 
veto  messages,  357;  President's 
use  of  the  veto,  358-59;  Presi- 


dent's influence  upon  legisla- 
tion, 359-60;  House  makes  re- 
quests of  President,  to  obtain 
information,  360;  propriety  of 
cabinet  officers  occupying  seats 
in  House,  361-62;  resolutions  of 
inquiry  occasion  strained  rela- 
tions, 362-65;  requests  for  in- 
formation relating  to  treaties, 
House  stubbornly  maintains  its 
right,  especially  if  related  to 
subjects  constitutionally  en- 
trusted to  Congress,  or  to  rates 
of  duty,  365-68;  sympathy  of 
House  with  people  struggling 
for  liberty,  368-69;  clashes  with 
President  over  French  invasion 
of  Mexico,  369-72;  when  Presi- 
dent and  House  are  in  political 
accord,  372-73;  relations  de- 
pend upon  spirit  of  House  lead- 
ers, 373;  House  completely  sub- 
servient to  President,  373,  375; 
Clay  made  it  independent,  374; 
relations  during  Johnson's  Ad- 
ministration, 376;  courage  of 
House  in  1875,  376;  at  other 
times,  377;  great  influence  of 
President  by  use  of  patronage, 
378-82;  Taft  recommended 
covering  offices  into  classified 
service,  382:  Wilson's  theory 
and  practice  of  using  patronage, 
382,  note;  House  never  resented 
President's  use  of  patronage, 
383;  upon  death  of  the  Presi- 
dent, 384;  of  a  former  President, 
386-87. 

Previous  question,  evolution  of, 
181;  did  not  close  debate,  183- 
84;  Speaker  rules  otherwise, 
184;  House  reverses  him,  185; 
finally  established,  187;  infre- 
quent use  of,  189;  an  unwieldy 
motion,  189-90;  amendments 
to,  190,  192,  195;  its  use  under 
the  present  procedure,  277- 
79. 

Private  calendar,  when  created, 
218;  purpose  of,  218. 


430 


INDEX 


Quorum  of  House,  155-58;  broken 
by  refusal  to  vote,  159;  a  favor- 
ite form  of  obstruction,  162, 
164;  decision  of  courts,  162; 
legislative  bodies  follow  court 
decisions,  162,  164;  Speaker 
counts  silent  members  to  make 
a  quorum,  165-76;  Crisp  re- 
fuses to  follow  the  precedent, 
172;  Crisp  forced  to  adopt  pre- 
cedent, 174. 

Randall,  Samuel  J.,  absence  of, 
from  House  regretted,  29; 
elected  Speaker  by  plurality, 
32;  firmness  during  passage  of 
Electoral  Commission  Bill,  44; 
conduct  under  charges,  46;  arbi- 
trary ruling,  58;  familiarity 
with  lobby,  70;  thanks  of  House 
to,  passed  under  previous  ques- 
tion, 74;  partiality  in  appoint- 
ment of  committees,  78;  op- 
poses appointment  of  commit- 
tees by  a  board,  80;  use  of  pow- 
er, 85;  a  floor  leader,  108;  length 
of  speeches,  110;  acknowledged 
floor  leader,  129;  character  of, 
129;  selection  of  strong  leaders, 
130;  as  to  a  quorum,  155;  aids 
in  revision  of  rules,  194;  first 
clash  with  Reed,  198;  estimate 
of,  198;  denounces  adoption  of 
special  order  by  majority  vote, 
203;  rearranges  "order  of  busi- 
ness," 220;  defeats  and  deposes 
Morrison,  240-42;  opposes  divi- 
sion of  Committee  on  Appro- 
priations, 243-45;  watchful  as  a 
floor  leader,  297. 

"Randall  and  his  forty  thieves," 
241. 

Randolph,  John,  criticism  of 
clerk,  13;  appointment  on  Ways 
and  Means,  68;  as  a  floor  leader, 
111;  character  and  ability  of, 
112;  caustic  censure  of  rules, 
182-83;  opposes  limitation  of 
previous  question,  184;  opposes 
previous  question,  186;  chal- 


lenged by  Eppes,  187;  his  long 
speeches,  188;  Adams's  esti- 
mate of,  188-89;  on  the  ques- 
tion of  consideration,  223;  use- 
ful service  in  establishing  fed- 
eral judiciary,  301;  moves  im- 
peachment of  Justice  Chase, 
332. 

Raymond,  Henry  J.,  relations  to 
President  Johnson,  146;  Ste- 
vens's  dislike  of,  146;  effective 
debater,  305. 

Reagan,  John  H.,  chairman  of 
Interstate  Commerce,  236;  char- 
acter of,  237;  brilliant  coup 
d'ttat,  237;  takes  river  and  har- 
bor items  from  Appropriations, 
238. 

Reed,  Thomas  B.,  on  power  of  the 
clerk,  23;  why  acquiesced  in,  23; 
absence  regretted,  29;  opinion 
of  the  oflfice  of  Speaker,  43;  re- 
tort to  Cox,  48;  rebuked  by 
Crisp,  49;  comment  on  Blaine, 
50;  bantering  Crisp,  51;  scouts 
at  control  of  Speaker,  55;  asks 
"For  what  purpose,"  59;  refus- 
es to  thank  Crisp,  73;  minority 
refuses  to  thank  him,  75;  candi- 
date for  Speaker,  77,  note;  op- 
poses appointment  of  commit- 
tees by  a  board,  78-79;  quali- 
ties as  a  leader,  84;  activity  as 
a  Whip,  105;  floor  leader,  108; 
length  of  speeches,  110;  selects 
McKinley  as  floor  leader,  110; 
relations  with  Crisp  and  Bailey, 
114;  replies  to  Springer,  126; 
comment  on  Dingley,  128;  esti- 
mate of  Randall,  129;  acknowl- 
edged leader  of  his  party,  131; 
forcefulness,  131;  action  of 
House  on  death  of,  154;  as  to  a 
quorum,  156;  counts  House  to 
ascertain  presence  of  a  quorum, 
157;  opposes  counting  silent 
members  to  make  a  quorum,  161 ; 
reaffirms  his  opposition,  202; 
reasons  for  changing  his  mind, 
165-66;  counts  silent  members 


INDEX 


431 


to  make  a  quorum,  165-66; 
plans  to  resign,  165;  opinion 
sustaining  count,  166-67;  called 
a  "czar,"  167;  controls  riotous 
opponents,  167-68;  criticism  of, 
169-70;  conscious  of  being  right, 
171;  his  prestige,  171-72;  forces 
Crisp  to  count  silent  members, 
173-74;  his  method  compared 
with  Crisp's,  174-75;  suppresses 
dilatory  motions,  197;  opposes 
Randall,  198;  the  two  com- 
pared, 198-99;  passes  a  special 
order  by  majority  vote,  202-03; 
his  famous  rules,  206;  rear- 
ranges "order  of  business," 
220-22;  defines  a  standing  com- 
mittee, 228;  on  Committee  on 
Rules  with  Carlisle,  242;  favors 
division  of  Committee  on  Ap- 
propriations, 242;  his  grievance, 
248;  argument  of,  249;  deeply 
regretted  his  action,  250;  watch- 
ful as  a  floor  leader,  297;  quick- 
ly aroused  the  House,  297;  his 
longest  speech,  311;  on  contest- 
ed election  cases,  323;  his  plan 
to  reform  practice,  328;  hostil- 
ity to  President  Harrison,  377. 

Reed  Rules,  the,  206. 

Reeder,    Andrew    H.,    friend    of 

u  Forney,  19;  contest  as  Kansas 
delegate,  19. 

"Regular  order."  See  Order  of 
business. 

Representatives,  when  chosen,  4; 
minimum  age,  4;  resident  of 
district,  5;  qualification  of,  10; 
cannot  hold  a  U.S.  office,  11; 
temporary  roll  of,  12;  wearing 
hats  in  House,  28;  smoking  in 
House,  28;  flowers  on  desks  of, 
28;  one  fourth  disappear  at  each 
biennial  election,  30;  length  of 
average  service,  30;  sworn  in  by 
Speaker,  37;  drawing  seats,  39; 
rooms  of,  40;  desire  for  recogni- 
tion, 56;  hesitate  to  appeal,  56; 
recognition  of,  57;  right  to  ap- 
peal, 60;  denied,  60;  tactful- 


ness  of,  70;  loss  of  pay  for  ab- 
sence, 95;  bitter  feeling  between, 
114,  116;  armed  with  deadly 
weapons,  116,  264-65;  if  in- 
dicted for  crime,  137;  freedom 
from  arrest,  137;  assault  upon, 
138;  challenge  of,  139;  speech 
of,  141;  called  to  order  for,  141; 
attacked  through  the  press, 
142;  bribery,  143;  questions  of 
privilege,  144;  privileged  ques- 
tions, 144-45;  private  interests 
of,  146;  when  may  not  vote, 
146-47;  proper  and  improper 
lobbying,  147-49;  misdeeds  of, 
149;  integrity  of,  150;  salary  of, 
151;  perquisites  of,  151;  mile- 
age, clerk,  and  stationery,  151; 
franking  privilege,  151-52,  fun- 
eral expenses,  152-53;  marks  of 
respect,  153-54;  funerals  in 
House,  154;  spirit  of  courtesy 
among,  183;  length  of  speeches, 
185,  188;  interrupted  by  dis- 
order, 189;  speeches  limited  to 
one  hour,  192;  complaints  of, 
210;  notable  members  without 
service  in  Senate,  310. 

Revolutionary  soldiers,  215. 

Rhett,  R.  Barnwell,  character- 
ized by  Adams,  16;  action  in 
New  Jersey  case,  16-17. 

Robinson,  George  D.,  witty  com- 
ment on  election  cases,  323. 

Roosevelt,  President,  aids  enact- 
ment of  Transportation  Act,  359. 

Root,  Elihu,  Reed  intended  to 
enter  office  of,  165. 

Rosebery,  Lord,  description  by,  of 
a  rotten  borough,  3. 

Rousseau,  Lovell  H.,  assaults 
Grinnell,  138;  House  repri- 
mands, 138;  resigns  and  is  re- 
elected,  138. 

Rules  of  the  House,  adoption  of, 
38;  as  originally  reported,  180; 
included  all  then  in  use,  180;  re- 
adopted  each  session,  182;  sin- 
gle rules  adopted  as  needed,  182; 
often  contradictory,  182;  cen- 


432 


INDEX 


sured  by  Randolph,  182;  cause 
of  criticism,  183;  aided  by  cour- 
tesy of  members,  183;  evolution 
of  previous  question,  183-87, 
189-90, 192, 195;  suspension  of, 
191,  199,  216-17;  did  not  con- 
form to  practice,  192;  revision 
in  I860,  192-93;  binding  until 
otherwise  ordered,  193;  renewed 
criticism  of,  193;  revision  in 
1880,  194-95;  none  adopted  at 
organization  of  House,  206;  the 
Reed  Rules,  206;  the  Crisp 
Rules,  207;  slight  difference  of, 
207;  criticism  of,  207;  a  tem- 
porary procedure  under,  209; 
amendments  to,  211. 
Russell,  Benjamin  E.,  opposes 
counting  silent  members  to 
make  quorum,  175. 

Salary  Grab  Act,  151. 

Savage,  John  H.,  on  Brooks's  as- 
sault on  Sumner,  140. 

Sayers,  John  D.,  favored  dividing 
Committee  on  Appropriations, 
250;  regretted  his  action,  250. 

Sayles,  Milton,  with  Randall  on 
Committee  on  Rules,  240. 

Schenck,  Robert  C.,  a  floor  leader, 
108;  head  of  Ways  and  Means, 
127;  his  leadership,  128;  ora- 
tory, 128;  advocated  division  of 
Committee  on  Appropriations, 
236;  Elaine's  tribute  to,  257. 

Seats  in  House,  drawing  of,  39. 

Sedgwick,  Theodore,  character  of, 
71;  tries  to  lead,  84;  opposes 
jurisdiction  of  Committee  of 
Whole,  260;  opposes  Varnum, 
314. 

Select  committee,  226. 

Sergeant-at-arms  of  House,  elec- 
tion of,  37;  holds  office  until 
successor  qualifies,  91;  how 
elected,  91 ;  bearer  of  the  mace, 
94;  maintains  order,  94;  pays 
salary  of  members,  94;  deducts 
pay  for  absence,  95;  appointees 
and  salary,  95. 


Sheridan,  General,  ready  to  drive 
French  out  of  Mexico,  372. 

Sherley,  Swagar,  condemns 
method  of  making  appropria- 
tions, 252:  plan  for  exercising 
economy,  254. 

Sherman,  James  S.,  absence  of, 
from  House  regretted,  29. 

Sherman,  John,  candidate  for 
Speaker,  88;  withdrawal  of,  89; 
floor  leader,  123;  character  of, 
124. 

Sherman,  Roger,  member  of  first 
Committee  on  Rules,  180;  sign- 
er of  Constitution,  300. 

Slidell,  John,  estimate  of,  21. 

Smith,  William  N.  H.,  candidate 
for  Speaker,  88. 

Soule",  Pierre,  estimate  of,  21. 

Speaker,  the,  contest  over  the 
election  of,  in  1839,  15-18;  in 
1855,  19-22;  election  of,  31; 
votes  required,  31;  when  elected 
by  plurality,  31-33;  conducted 
to  chair,  33-34;  character  of  in- 
augural remarks,  34;  adminis- 
tration of  oath  by  Father  of  the 
House,  35;  interruption  of  cus- 
tom, 36;  first  duty  of,  37;  execu- 
tive duties,  41;  duties  as  pre- 
siding officer,  41;  appointment 
of  committees,  41;  chairman  of 
Committee  on  Rules,  41;  salary 
of,  41-42;  rank  of,  42;  location 
at  public  functions,  42;  com- 
pared with  Speaker  of  House  of 
Commons,  43;  a  political  lead- 
er, 44;  compared  with  British 
Prime  Minister,  44,  85;  how 
selected,  44;  most  prominent, 
45;  under  investigation,  46;  se- 
lects chairman  of  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  47;  conduct  in  chair, 
48;  addresses  House  by  leave, 
49;  not  always  regarded,  49-51; 
rule  as  to  voting,  52-53;  au- 
thority to  preserve  order,  54; 
no  control  over  Record,  54;  pow- 
er to  decide,  54-55;  appeals 
from,  55;  right  of  recognition  by, 


INDEX 


433 


56-57;  arbitrary  ruling,  results 
of,  58,  61-62;  limited  power,  62, 
64;  right  to  appoint  commit- 
tees, 66;  thanked  by  House,  70- 
74;  loses  right  to  appoint  stand- 
ing committees,  81 ;  powers  left 
to,  83;  needed  qualities,  83,  85; 
intention  of  the  Fathers,  86; 
election  of,  in  1854, 86;  the  Clay 
standard,  86-87;  election  of,  in 
1859,  87-88;  Reed's  comment, 
90;  selects  floor  leader,  110; 
determines  question  of  privi- 
lege, 145;  appeal  from,  145; 
counts  House  to  ascertain  pres- 
ence of  a  quorum,  157;  formerly 
refused  to  count  silent  members 
to  make  a  quorum,  159;  Reed 
counts  them,  165-66;  Crisp  re- 
fuses, 172;  afterward  adopts 
the  precedent,  174;  charged 
with  obstructing  business,  192; 
is  made  chairman  of  Committee 
on  Rules,  193;  decides  against 
dilatory  motions,  202;  slow  to 
use  special  orders,  205;  abuse  of, 
205;  is  left  off  Committee  on 
Rules,  212. 

Speaker  pro  tempore,  how  selected, 
45;  duties  and  character  of,  45. 

Speaker's  table,  the,  214. 

Special  Order,  when  first  adopted 
by  a  majority  vote,  191;  prece- 
dent established,  204;  practice 
grew  slowly,  205;  first  appear- 
ance of,  216. 

Speeches  in  House,  length  of,  185, 
188-89;  interrupted  by  disorder, 
189;  limited  to  one  hour,  192. 

Springer,  William  M.,  desires 
minority  members  of  commit- 
tees selected  by  minority  caucus, 
80;  character  as  floor  leader, 
126;  Reed's  retorts,  126;  de- 
clares business  practically  sus- 
pended, 173;  supports  rule  to 
count  silent  members  to  make  a 
quorum,  176. 

Stanberry,  William,  Adams  re- 
fuses to  vote  on  censure  of,  158. 


Standing  committee,  how  selected, 
66,  229;  becomes  partisan,  66; 
mode  of  appointment  criticized, 
67-70;  efforts  to  change  man- 
ner of,  76-77;  appointments 
taken  from  Speaker,  82;  Reed 
defines  a  standing  committee, 
228;  the  number  of,  increases 
slowly,  228;  majority  and  mi- 
nority division,  228-29;  chair- 
man of,  229;  notable  service, 
229;  hearings  of,  229-30;  closed 
sessions,  230;  majority  of  a  quo- 
rum reports,  230;  unreported 
bills,  230;  minority  submits 
views,  230;  committee's  high 
privilege  to  report  at  any  time, 
230;  a  committee  created  as 
needed,  231-33;  dropped  when 
unnecessary,  233;  existing  num- 
bers, 233;  separation  of  Manu- 
factures and  Commerce,  233;  di- 
vision of  Ways  and  Means,  233- 
36;  division  of  Committee  on 
Appropriations,  results  in  alarm- 
ing growth  of  expenses,  236-50. 

State  legislature,  may  change  con- 
gressional districts,  9;  cannot 
disregard  apportionment,  9. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  action  of 
House  on  death  of,  154;  aids 
in  revision  of  rules,  194;  with 
Randall  on  Rules,  240;  resem- 
bled Randolph,  268;  tactics 
used  by,  in  repealing  Missouri 
Compromise,  268-70. 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  a  floor  leader, 
108;  length  of  speeches,  110;  dis- 
like of  Raymond,  146;  sharp  re- 
torts, 146;  spirit  governing  elec- 
tion cases,  323;  wrests  control 
from  Johnson,  376;  first  chair- 
man of  Committee  on  Appro- 
priations, Appendix  E. 

Stevenson,  Andrew,  character  of, 
71;  effort  to  thank,  71;  unpop- 
ularity of,  76;  makes  previous 
question  unwieldy,  189;  makes 
House  subservient  to  Jackson, 
375. 


434 


INDEX 


Storrs,  Henry  R.,  piquant  replies, 
118;  character  of,  301. 

Sumner,  Charles,  on  President 
Johnson's  impeachment,  351. 

Sunday,  observance  of,  100. 

Swayne,  U.S.  District  Judge,  334; 
failure  of  impeachment  proceed- 
ings, 331. 

Taft,  President,  appoints  commis- 
sion on  economy,  253;  use  of  the 
veto,  359;  proposes  changes  in 
tariff  act,  359;  recommends 
that  patronage  be  covered  into 
the  classified  service,  382. 

Tawney,  James  A.,  activity  as 
Whip,  105;  head  of  Committee 
on  Appropriations,  132;  regard- 
ing wasteful  appropriations,  251. 

Taylor,  John  W.,  election  as 
Speaker,  66;  anti-slavery  candi- 
date, 66;  ambitious  to  be  clerk  of 
House,  92;  activity  asWhip,  104; 
held  Committee  of  Whole  be- 
longed to  committee  system, 
256;  a  leader  in  contest  over 
Missouri  Compromise,  301. 

Taylor,  President,  his  use  of  the 
veto,  358;  respect  paid  by 
House  upon  his  death,  384-85. 

Temperance,  sale  of  liquors  in 
Capitol  prohibited  by  House, 
100. 

Territorial  delegates,  office  cre- 
ated, 10;  when  admitted  to 
House,  11;  qualification  of,  11; 
privileges  of,  11. 

Toombs,  Robert,  estimate  of,  21, 
302. 

Tucker,  John  Randolph,  advo- 
cates counting  a  quorum,  160, 
306. 

Tyler,  President,  resents  a  resolu- 
tion of  inquiry,  362-63;  hot  re- 
ply of  House,  363. 

Unanimous      consent      calendar, 

when  created,  211. 
Underwood,    Oscar    W.,    elected 

head  of  Ways  and  Means,  81, 


135;  his  tariff  bill,  127;  manner 
of  speaking,  128;  character  of, 
134;  appoints  committees,  135; 
overcome  by  President's  use  of 
patronage,  135;  transferred  to 
Senate,136;  his  long  service,  307. 

Union  calendar,  when  created, 
218;  its  purpose,  218. 

United  States  Supreme  Court, 
power  of  House  to  punish  con- 
tumacious witness  defined,  143; 
holds  McKinley  tariff  bill  valid, 
178. 

Vallandigham,  Clement  L.,  calls 
Speaker  a  despot,  89. 

Van  Buren,  President,  his  use  of 
the  veto,  358. 

Vance,  Joseph,  Adams's  estimate 
of,  124. 

Varnum,  Joseph  B.,  drops  Ran- 
dolph, 71 ;  sustains  previous  ques- 
tion, 184;  House  reverses  him, 
185;  contested  election  case,  314. 

Verplanck,  Gulian  C.,  floor  leader, 
125. 

Vinton,  Samuel  F.,  floor  leader, 
108;  power  as  a  debater,  119; 
declines  nomination  as  Speaker, 
119;  cause  of  his  retirement, 
120. 

Washburn,  Israel,  revises  the  rules, 
192;  denounces  tactics  used  in 
repealing  Missouri  Compromise, 
269;  on  law  governing  election 
cases,  321. 

Washburn,  William  B.,  remark- 
able influence  of,  293. 

Washburne,  Elihu  B.,  a  father  of 
the  House,  Appendix  D. 

Washington,  President,  use  of  the 
veto,  358;  visits  Senate,  361; 
denies  right  of  House  to  ask  in- 
formation respecting  treaties, 
365-66. 

"Watchdog  of  the  Treasury." 
See  Holman,  William  S. 

Watrous,  John  C.,  House  refuses 
to  impeach,  332. 


INDEX 


435 


Watson,  James  E.,  character  of, 
105;  activity  as  Whip,  105. 

Wayne,  Anthony,  contested  elec- 
tion case,  313;  his  Revolution- 
ary record,  314;  appointed 
commander-in-chief  of  army, 
314. 

Webb,  James  Watson,  connection 
with  Graves-Cilley  duel,  139. 

Webster,  Daniel,  on  apportion- 
ment, 5;  explains  Washington's 
veto,  6;  his  system  adopted,  7; 
one  of  a  brilliant  star-cluster, 
301;  tribute  to  Prentiss's  elo- 
quence, 317-18. 

Wentworth,  John,  accusation  of 
Douglas,  58. 

Wheeler,  Joseph,  contested  elec- 
tion case,  197. 

Whip,  the,  no  official  recognition, 
104;  importance  in  House  of 
Commons,  104;  duties  of  office, 
105;  activity  of,  106. 

White,  John,  struck  in  the  face, 
115;  rules  that  Committee  on 
Rules  can  report  at  any  time, 
191. 

Wigfall,  Louis  T.,  estimate  of,  21. 

Williams,  John  S.,  minority  lead- 
er, 114;  friendship  for  Cannon, 
114;  proposes  to  block  legisla- 
tion, 207;  estimate  of,  208;  rela- 
tions with  Cannon,  209;  a  leader 
during  Cannon's  speakership, 
307. 

Williams,  Lewis,  oldest  member, 
14;  father  of  the  House,  35,  Ap- 
pendix D;  funeral  of,  153-54. 

Wilson,  James,  activity  as  Whip, 


105;  Secretary  of  Agriculture, 
105. 

Wilson,  James  F.,  chairman  of 
Judiciary  Committee,  343;  prin- 
ciples governing  impeachment, 
343-44. 

Wilson,  William  L.,  absence  of, 
from  House  regretted,  29;  head 
of  Ways  and  Means,  127;  char- 
acter of,  127;  his  tariff  bill,  127; 
speech  closing  a  tariff  debate, 
311-12. 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  President,  in- 
fluence of,  135;  on  lobbying, 
149;  use  of  patronage,  381 ;  views 
of  as  a  college  president,  382, 
note. 

Winthrop,  Robert  C.,  conducts 
Speaker  to  chair,  33;  Benton's 
advice  to,  42;  rules  as  to  voting, 
53;  Clay's  advice  to,  55;  ap- 
points Vinton  floor  leader,  110; 
cause  ,of  his  retirement,  120; 
ruling  respecting  a  challenge, 
139;  an  ideal  orator,  302. 

Wirt,  William,  337;  on  rules  of 
evidence,  337;  defends  Peck  in 
impeachment  case,  351;  point 
case  turned  on,  351;  rebukes 
Buchanan,  351. 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  character  of,  14; 
criticism  of  clerk,  14;  armed 
with  deadly  weapon,  116;  acts 
as  second  in  Graves-Cilley  duel, 
139. 

Wood,  Fernando,  character  as 
floor  leader,  130. 

Yulee,  David  L.,  estimate  of,  20. 


CAMBRIDGE  .  MASSACHUSETTS 
U   .   S   .  A 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  ^      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


^a 


o  o 


198T 


«t 


AUG05 


ib  3  1  faUl 


HU 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 


FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  3/80          BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


®s 


YC  liliil 5 

I  CObl3133SD 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


